On 21/02/2012 12:53 p.m., Tony Finch wrote:
Adrien de Croy<[email protected]> wrote:
If there was a distinction between a control message and a data message, then
the network could know things like how to not create loops.
That's what null return paths are for. Exchange doesn't implement
auto-replies properly so they don't work as they should.
null return paths are a hack. And they aren't reliable. Even though
it's explicitly stated in many RFCs, some MTAs still reject them.
And they destroy information, unless you can put the lost information
into a machine readable location in the message body.
It would need to be clearly defined, machine readable etc. It could be stored
and forwarded, and moved over the same transport.
Already done.
you mean the message format is defined? Where? sorry if I'm being
lazy, I didn't think that was defined in the RFC for DNs.
Adrien
Tony.
--
Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server - http://www.wingate.com
WinGate 7 is released! - http://www.wingate.com/getlatest/
_______________________________________________
imap5 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5
