> On Fri March 4 2005 22:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Not only was it discussed, the draft actually specified this scheme at one
> > point.
> > The problem in a nutshell was that it required client modifications.
> Ned, if I understand your remarks correctly, you are claiming that
> the scheme that I outlined requires client modification. That is
> incorrect, though w/o modification, operation would be as is currently
> the case (i.e. the scheme is intended to be backward compatible) with
> RFC 2476 (client can't distinguish whether server is MTA or MSA, has
> no control over modifications, etc.). Could you please explain
> specifically where you believe that the scheme outlined *requires*
> client modification.
OK, fine, it doesn't *require* client modification, but client modification is
necessary for the scheme to offer much benefit.
It's still a solution looking for a problem.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
