Re: SPF is harmful. Adopt it.

Thus said James Craig Burley on 06 Mar 2004 16:54:06 GMT:

> (And, again,  this can't be done  at all in IM2000-land  if the remote
> message store  is unavailable. I know  a message is waiting  for me; I
> just can't see it. I think that'd be very frustrating.)

How is this different from temporarily deferring the message in SMTP and
then  having the  sender's  SMTP server  go down  while  you decide  you
actually want it? Oh I see,  you scanned the message once already during
DATA and stored a local copy even though you told the sender's server to
defer  and retry  again  later? Now  you have  duplicate  copies of  the
message floating around.  Obviously you couldn't reject  the message the
next time it  tries to be delivered  so you would have to  accept it and
then discard it since you presumably  already have a copy, thus doubling
your SMTP bandwidth on messages that you want.

Did I  just misinterpret what  you suggest? If  this isn't what  you are
suggesting, then  having an SMTP  server that you  told to defer  and an
IM2000 message store go down are essentially the same.

Andy
-- 
GnuPG ID 0xA63888C9 (D2DA 68C9 BB2B 26B4 8204  2219 A43E F450 A638 88C9)
[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
 10:47am  up 81 days, 13:16,  4 users,  load average: 1.01, 1.07, 1.08