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.
Agree with both points.
>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.
>
>
I really don't think this is necessary.
Ned