Ian Eiloart wrote: > > --On 6 October 2008 20:19:08 -0700 Claus Assmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Why not add support for PRDR? Take a look at the (unfortunately >> expired) internet draft from Eric A. Hall: > > This one? > <http://home.claranet.de/xyzzy/home/test/draft-hall-prdr-00.txt> > >> SMTP Service Extension for Per-Recipient Data Responses (PRDR) > > It differs like this: > > With PRDR, the server can give a single response if all the responses would > be the same. There's a slight efficiency there. > > When giving a full response, the format is like LMTP except that it starts > with a "353" response, eg "353 content analysis has started". > > So, this is more like LMTP, but is a bit more efficient. > > Furthermore, PRDR requires strict adherence to timeout specifications,
Fat chance of that. The latest smtp RFC timeout specs are not even real-world relevant, let alone seen in common use. Add up the mandated times. quarter-speed telex was faster than that. > and > requires use of pipelining, in order to reduce the chances of losing > responses. I don't see the connection there. Pipelining potentially saves time, but it *adds* failure modes. > That all seems like an improvement on both XEXDATA and XLMTP, > and therefore worthwhile. > Only if you assume pipelining will be permitted (not on our boxes) and timing will fit yet-another particular set of parameters. Am I the Lone Ranger in wanting to tilt toward an implementation ten years in use vs one not yet even dry? If so, WHY so? Bill -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
