Barry Leiba wrote:
What I'm interested in community input on is whether the mechanism of transferring the information back and forth between the two, and having SMTP protocol get involved in inspecting and altering header fields is a good thing.
I may be too old school, but I still believe "thou shall not tamper with mail" in principle, especially passthru.
Only with Network related control lines/headers that the transports deal with. If this header is one of these, I don't see an issue.
Also, in regards of the transport even processing the headers (which suggest analyzing the payload at DATA before the EOD response is issued), past concerns included the "delay factor", the scalability question, the dupe potentials, the current 10 min "timeout" too long and not always supported by clients, including ideas of using a "Keep Alive" for DATA shims that take too long.
If I understand where you going with this, IMV, I don't think it is a good thing SMTP systems should be expected will be processing the payload or its headers before the EOD is issued.
-- HLS _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
