Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-vaudreuil-futuredelivery-00.txt

On 5/1/02 at 7:44 PM -0600, Greg M (Greg) Vaudreuil wrote:

>This memo defines an extension to the SMTP submission protocol for 
>client indication of a future-delivery time.

I have no problem with the SMTP submission extension, but I really 
think section 4 is a bad idea. If you've got no IMAP store and you 
just want something queued for a particular time, it would be fine to 
use this SMTP extension. However, if there is going to be an IMAP 
store where you can delete the message, I think this is just the 
wrong way to do it. There should be a command in IMAP to submit a 
message to SMTP (e.g., what I've been talking about adapting the 
CHANNEL command to do), and that mechanism should have a future 
delivery specifier. If this wants to be an IMAP mechanism, make it an 
IMAP mechanism. If you still need a separate SMTP mechanism, keep it 
separate.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email protected]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
----------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to you, since you are subscribed to
[email protected]. You can manage your subscription at
http://www.neystadt.org/cgi-bin/majordomo