On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 1:07 PM John Levine <johnl(_at_)taugh(_dot_)com> wrote:
In article
<13753(_dot_)1547150864(_at_)turing-police(_dot_)cc(_dot_)vt(_dot_)edu> you
write:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:55:53 -0800, John Bucy said:
The MSA could call ahead/cut-through, doesn't exim do that? That might
also
allow for the mua to throw an error ui at the user if they fat-fingered
the
recipient rather than getting a bounce back later.
No.
Consider this reply. I'm in Comcast cable territory, which means that I
can
only do outbound port 25 to Comcast/Xfinity servers. So my only realistic
way to get this mail out is to 587 it to Google's submission servers.
Now how do I "call ahead" for the cc: that's going to John Levine?
The theory is that you submit the whole message to Google and it
probes the recipients before it accepts the message, but now you have
the added issue of how to report back that receipient A can handle it
but recipient B cannot.
I'd really rather the duct tape be applied to make external-body work
better.
Getting the blobs out of band may well be better for large messages. Even
if binary isn't the most compelling case for this, I would like to see a
better way to incrementally roll out new features that require end-to-end
support that is less prone to extended messages leaking out to everyone
else that isn't ready yet.
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp