Phil Pennock wrote: > On 2008-10-06 at 20:19 -0700, Claus Assmann wrote: >> Why not add support for PRDR? Take a look at the (unfortunately >> expired) internet draft from Eric A. Hall: >> >> SMTP Service Extension for Per-Recipient Data Responses (PRDR) >> >> It is supported by one MTA (MeTA1, see http://www.meta1.org/). > > Reading the PRDR draft, it's almost identical in the protocol changes to > EXDATA, which is an older draft and implemented in Courier, we're told. > > The real difference is that PRDR uses unwrapped response codes, so that > you get multiple top-level responses, in the style of LMTP, but without > claiming to be other than SMTP, which means that it's breaking the > protocol. Mind, that doesn't matter much since it has to be requested. > > Since Tony is listed in the Acknowledgements for the PRDR draft, I'd be > interested in knowing his opinion. > > -Phil >
Sorry - been fighting heat and hardware problems on this server ... Point w/r MeTA1 - there you go. TWO implementations each of which work only to themselves. Perhaps MeTAl has a more elegant approach. Or not. But does it stay within the allowance for experimental extensions as well as Courier? Plus - it is still early days for the MeTAl project, whereas courier-mta has been around for donkey's years. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
