On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:45:00AM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I don't quite understand the "processing headers is costly" argument
In order to be able to process the headers, they have to be received
in the first place.
The difference is that in one kind of proposal one is able to stop
a mail right after one of the RFC 821 type of commands (upto and
including "DAtA") whereas in the other kind of proposal one has to
receive the attached message (which could be huge!), process it and
delete it.
The difference is not in processing itself (at least: no significant
difference) but in transfering the body or not.
HTH
Alex
An even bigger deal than the bandwidth and processing is the
administration of non-delivery notifications. If I can reject the
message during the SMTP dialogue, then my MTA has not taken
responsibility for the message. The previous MTA in the change has to
send the NDN and the postmaster of *that* MTA gets a copy.
If my MTA receives the message (takes responsibility with a 2xx response
to the DATA command), then my MTA must send the NDN and *I* get a copy.
Yuch!
Regards,
"Steve" Stephen L. Arnold, Ph.D., President, Arnold Consulting, Inc.
Address 2530 Targhee Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53711-5491 U.S.A.
Telephone +1 608 278 7700 Facsimile +1 608 278 7701
Internet Stephen(_dot_)L(_dot_)Arnold(_at_)Arnold(_dot_)com
http://WWW.Arnold.com
Arnold® is a registered trademark and service mark of Arnold Consulting, Inc.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)½§Åv¼ð¦ç?2b¥yÈbox(_dot_)com