Fred Lindberg writes:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 23:09:52 +0100 (MET), Stefan Paletta wrote:
>
> >Any takers for an ESMTP server-sided VERP expansion extension draft? ;-)
>
> Any takes for a QMTP _recipient_ side VERP expansion draft?
>
> When you talk about several recipients in a QMTP message where the QMTP
> recipient does VERP expansion there are no valid arguments whatsoever
> against having multiple recipients.
>
> In essence, you get raw qmail queue communication. Fast, efficient, and
> usable both as normal hosts and especially as smarthosts. You can run
> mailing lists on a host with a not-so-good connection, QMTP them to a
> well-connected smarthost and explode then there. To other QMTP hosts
> they go on as multi-recipient messages, to SMTP hosts they go
> one-by-one after VERP expansion.
THAT would be really really cool. There are some people (such as Mark
Crispin) who object to VERP in such strong terms as to call it a
denial of service attack. By way of explanation, his MTA retains
multi-RCPT message in a single file. When a VERP'ed message comes in,
each has to be stored in its own file.
If qmail's QMTP client coagulated recipients addressed to the same
hostname (chasing down MXes take more bandwidth, as Dan has proven),
then we could tell the Mark Crispins of the world, "So implement QMTP
if you're that concerned about resources. QMTP takes less bandwidth,
and can receive any number of recipients in a single message."
I'd really like to see this in qmail 2.0. Anything I can do to help, Dan?
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
