Claus Assmann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
My main question about this draft is whether the extra complexity compared
to LMTP is really useful. What is your rationale for it? I have considered
It avoids replies for those recipients that are accepted without
having to check the message. Is it worth it? I don't know...
To make it simpler for people to implement "deferred RCPT reply"
(DRR) it would be better to simply use the LMTP model as most likely
several SMTP clients implement this already and hence existing code
can be reused.
Can we get some consensus which way we want to go:
1. the already known LMTP model.
2. the enhanced model described in draft-hall-deferrals-00.
I would happily go with the LMTP model. I think this extension is long
overdue.
PS: we might use an extension with a version, e.g.,
220-DRR v1 v2
MAIL From:<...> DRR=v1
where the version numbers correspond to those listed above, and
make one of them (v1?) mandatory to implement. That might allow for
"future enhancements" with "little" effort.