Re: Operations requirement: no hop-by-hop

> >For the traffic between domains, single-hop is considerable. But for
> >the traffic within the domain (i.e. what is MX to mailbox today), you
> >can't assume every mailbox to be online all the time.
>
> Fully agree. I didn't get to that point until the end of the message,
> but I can see from other responses that people missed it. Let me try
> again:
>
> The mail-ng transport protocol should be designed to only know about a
> single hop, from sender to recipient. The sender may have multiple hops
> to a designated transport agent, and the receiving transport agent may
> have multiple hops to a mailstore, but the transport protocol should not
> make any accommodation for these additional hops other than to allow
> them to add metadata to the transit stream. These requirements are to
> make the protocol more sensible and to limit the responsibility of
> operators to just what they control.

Hmm. Do you mind trying one more time? I'm still not sure I'm getting
this...

Is the point that in a "single hop" world, the receiving system can be
expected to know a lot more about the recipient than the ability to
perform a routing decision? (oh...and the sending system would know more
about the sender)

Or is there more to it than that?

jb