Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> but there is a layer violation issue with MLM's. Unless you have a MLM >> that >> is completely purpose-built with SMTP, or has bits and pieces of itself >> inserted into >> milter-like parts of the SMTP stream, your average MTA is going to have >> no clue whether it's destined for a MLM or anything else. > > Those points might well encourage future MLMs to be implemented with > much tighter MTA integration, but if so, we can be sure there > will always be the legacy stuff hanging around as drag.
Exactly The legacy system will be there. So you design around it. Its not really hard. No stats is needed to understand that. All mail vendors had to deal with the legacy issue for a long time. Fwiw, we have one of this "Future MLM" since 1996 designed around an integrated RPC client/server framework. The MLM saves an centralized "list address acceptance" list file, including subscribe/unsubscribe list addresses for the SMTP servers to use at the RCPT level. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
