John R. Levine ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Because it uses ESMTP option negotiation to find out if the server
: supports that.
My point is that it is the senders responsibility to generate a
return path. Passing that responsibility to the server isn't a good
idea, regardless of whatever promises the server makes, when it is
so easy for the sender to send the VERPified RP.
: >It would be better to send as many "return paths" as recipient
: >addresses, but only one message. This might end up looking like:
: >MAIL FROM/RCPT TO:<me-you-returned=example.com><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Can you suggest an application where that would be useful? I use VERP
: all the time and I can't ever recall a situation where the default
: form of VERP wasn't entirely adequate.
Someone took the trouble to put up a draft; so at least one person
feels there's bandwidth savings to be had. The pseudo-esmtp command
example accomplishes that with less complexity than the draft, and
is probably more easily retrofitted into existing servers than
embedding yet a whole nuther encoder/decoder.
-harold
