Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard
Dave Crocker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.fax |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 07:49 PM 7/2/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >--On Tuesday, 02 July, 2002 15:33 -0600 Alexey Melnikov ><[email protected]> wrote: > > Correct me if > > I am wrong, but it seams that extending VRFY command is more > > appropriate for the purpose than using RCPT. > >Hmm. _That_ is an interesting idea, since we have always >permitted VRFY to do somewhat more poking around in real time >than one might normally expect of RCPT (where "poking around" >efforts more often result in a 250 code and an email rejection >if needed). If I understand both your comments and Keith's suggestion, the key is a separate command. It, too, find that aesthetically preferable. The problem is with efficiency. A separate command means 2 commands per recipient and it means at least one synchronization event, between issuance of this new command and issuance of the first RCPT-TO. That's quite a bit of overhead, for something that frequently will have no effect on the content being transferred. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850