Maxime, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, but its as likely to be my misunderstanding as anything, so please bear with me..
> The only prerequisite for this is that SMTP provides for some kind of > acknowledgement of receipt, > and that the SMTP source implementation uses this ack. to delete the > mail from its "to send" list... > > Does SMTP have this ? As far as SMTP is concerned it should in practice offer once and once only receipt for all reasonable purposes. It doesn't *guarantee* it, for the obvious reason that it is often impossible to deliver absolutes, but relatively easy to deliver accuracy to the nth degree. What you're suggesting is in fact the way in which James behaves during its SMTP receive-and-spool, failure to spool causes a "4.x.x" "transient error" code to be returned prompting the sender to re-try at their convenience. The issue I think we started discussing was that James de-spooling and subsequent processing is a lazier system, offering no-losses but at the price of messages possibly passing at least part-way through more than once. d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
