David, I guess no one can force you to use the RFC. But it's written there, = nontheless.
Anyway, if it's about being right or wrong, then pick either sides and = stick to it. I am merely saying that such a feature should be in XMAIL, = having so much other things to offer, and in heavy loaded situations, = this feature is absolutely vital and saves both bandwidth and CPU = cycles. Give it a thought... Noor -----Original Message----- From: Davide Libenzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 7:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [xmail] Re: Reusing open connections On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, [windows-1255] =3DF0=3DE5=3DF8 =3DE3=3DE0=3DE5=3DE3 = wrote: > David, >=3D20 > But why fail the first time? Nonetheless, there's a clear ESMTP = protocol =3D =3D3D > to address exactly this problem. You save bandwidth, save resources on = =3D =3D3D > the SMTP server and G-d knows what else. >=3D20 > My C++ knowledge is pretty rusty or else I would have done this = myself. =3D =3D3D > Haven't touched a C code for years now. How hard would it be to code = it =3D =3D3D > anyway? It's part of the ESMTP standard, and XMAIL is supposedly a = ESMTP =3D =3D3D > compliant server... If you point me to the exact RFC that states that MTAs *MUST* = implement=3D20 nagle-like algorithm for their queue, I might consider the = implementation. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
