Paul,
PHI> In the current SMTP model, I believe we have been restricted from
PHI> having SMTP options that "speak for" SMTP servers further in the
PHI> chain. For example, we were prevented from making a "NO UCE" banner
PHI> because there was no way for the server making that claim to know
PHI> what SMTP servers behind it would have as policy.
So the real requirement you have in mind is being able to move
recipient meta information out along the reception path.
Malamud's no-UCE proposal and CONNEG (from the fax group) both would
benefit from that enhancement, but are felt to be useful within the
current environment.
d/
ps. folks who view the current (default-free) Internet as being direct
should take a look at the delay-tolerant networking activities in the
IRTF, to get a sense of where things are likely to go. In general, we
need planning for long-term to be more inclusive of real-world variety.
--
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>