RE: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard

Hi all,

I am involved in the technical support/ training area for fax and internet
fax devices and would just like to add that typically a message/transaction
is directed to one recipient only.
(I make no judgement as to other services that may piggyback on SMTP and if
they will typically include multiple recipients).

As the number of Multi-function devices supporting Internet fax move to an
increasing number of options (colour copiers etc supporting Internet fax) I
suspect that the onus should be on the recipient client to confirm its
capabilities, not the server.

I make no judgement as to other services that may piggyback on SMTP and if
they will typically include multiple recipients.


Cheers,

Gerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert A. Rosenberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, 4 July 2002 6:17 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation
to Proposed Standard



At 18:09 -0700 on 07/02/2002, Dave Crocker wrote about Re: Last Call: 
SMTP Service Extension for Content Negot:

>  >  If, on the other
>>hand, messages tailored for a each recipient is going to be the norm, then
>>VRFY is the correct approach.
>
>
>If the sender is concerned about optimizing for each recipient, they can
>get that effect by reducing to a single RCPT-TO per DATA.
>
>So it is not as pretty as the separate command, but it permits roughly the
>same mode of operation.

This "one address per copy" approach insures that there will ALMOST 
ALWAYS be wasted processing and message uploading in any situation 
where knowing the capabilities prior to message transmission would 
have allowed the piggybacking of additional addresses onto a copy of 
the message (IOW: 5 message versions going to a total of 25 addresses 
instead of 25 copies each addressed to one of the 25 addresses saving 
thus saving 20 message transmissions). You need to decide what the 
trade-offs are between minimal number of separate copies (with its 
processing overhead) and the one message copy per address (with its 
wasting of bandwidth and throttling of delivery speed due to queuing 
of messages that could have been passed to the server as part of a 
prior transmission).