Re: SMTP traffic control

On 2011-10-28 23:09:26 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org 
> > [mailto:owner-ietf-smtp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Peter 
> > J. Holzer
> > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:10 PM
> > To: ietf-smtp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
> > Subject: Re: SMTP traffic control
> >
> > I really don't understand the resistance against the idea. Some servers
> > and some clients will implement it and benefit from it (if they are
> > talking to each other), others won't and for them everything will be as
> > before. How would a standardized way of conveying the same information
> > that some servers already convey informally hurt the mail system?
> The issue is not one of potential harm, it's a measure of the cost of
> specifying this through the IETF (which is high)
How high is the cost of of publishing an experimental RFC? Somebody has
to write it, a few people have to discuss it on a mailing list, and
finally an editor has to do a bit of QA and publish it. What do I miss?

        hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Web 2.0 könnte man also auch übersetzen als
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR       | "Netz der kleinen Geister".
| |   | hjp(_at_)hjp(_dot_)at         | 
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |  -- Oliver Cromm in desd

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature