Honestly, in either case it would be preferable to be able to break out prior to the data phase if at all possible, in that respect I believe option 1 to be better suited as we have all reciepients sent prior to the data phase of the conversation. Not to mention option 1 seems to lend itself more towards backwards compatibility as it is only modifying the already implemented responses using already implemented SMTP commands, in fact... other than the responses there is not much difference between option 1 and the way it works now.
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:21:41 -0400, David F. Skoll wrote .... > Either extension would do what we need. I think (2) is cleaner > because it doesn't break the expectation of exactly one reply code > per command. .... > We just need the IETF to go along with this. We then also need > everyone who runs an MTA to upgrade. :-( And that is the truly "hard" part.... Jim -- EsisNet.com Webmail Client _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
