Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-01.txt

OK, I've added the following paragraph after the list of possible actions:

There may be some confusion between when to use
.q expanded  
versus
.q delivered .
Whenever possible,
.q expanded
should be used when the MTA knows that the message will be sent to
multiple addresses.
However, in some cases the delivery occurs to a program
which, unknown to the MTA, causes mailing list expansion;
in the extreme case, the delivery may be to a real mailbox
that has the side effect of list expansion.
If the MTA cannot ensure that this delivery will cause list expansion,
it should set the action to
.q delivered .

Does this adequately clarify things?

eric



============= In Reply To: ===========================================
: From:  Chris Newman <[email protected]>
: Subject:  Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-msgtrk-trkstat-01.txt
: Date:  Tue, 19 Jun 2001 10:25:45 -0700

: --On Monday, June 18, 2001 20:18 -0700 Eric Allman 
: <[email protected]> wrote:
: > The problem with using "expanded" for all cases where there are
: > multiple recipients is that the MTA doesn't necessarily know.  For
: > example, if the MTA can deliver to a program on behalf of a user,
: > that program might explode a mailing list.  I believe you see this
: > in Postfix, and for that matter some message stores (including, I
: > believe, Exchange) have the property that the MTA delivers to a
: > real mailbox which is then scanned later by a background process
: > that does the exploding.
: 
: I'm all for accepting reality.  So I'd say that both "delivered" and 
: "expanded" are valid for any multi-recipient scenario, although the latter 
: should be preferred since it makes it clearer to the notification recipient 
: what happened.  It's fine to have overlapping meanings like this, but it 
: needs to be explicit to avoid confusion.
: 
: 		- Chris
: