Your arguments are interesting in so far as they pertain to the use of QMTP, but
my concern is more that at some point the Qmail community may want to have QMTP
as RFCxyz and used as a standard feature of mail exchange. With that goal (in my
mind, maybe not yours), my proposal seemed to have more
Michael T. Babcock writes:
> Actually, searching for MXPS (thank-you) in the archives, I found:
> http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/01/msg00791.html
> ... by DJB (in January, 1999):
>
> -X-
> I'm going to use a special MX host name format instead of special MX
> pre
Actually, searching for MXPS (thank-you) in the archives, I found:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/01/msg00791.html
... by DJB (in January, 1999):
-X-
I'm going to use a special MX host name format instead of special MX
preferences. The basic options will be
_magic.s
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 05:32:17PM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> DJB mentions on his 'future of qmail' page that a way to encode that a
> host supports QMTP into its MX data is in the works. What method for
> doing so is proposed?
http://cr.yp.to/proto/mxps.txt, I imagine.
Regards,
james
DJB mentions on his 'future of qmail' page that a way to encode that a
host supports QMTP into its MX data is in the works. What method for
doing so is proposed?
