On Fri March 4 2005 22:43, ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Not only was it discussed, the draft actually specified this scheme at one > point. > The problem in a nutshell was that it required client modifications. Ned, if I understand your remarks correctly, you are claiming that the scheme that I outlined requires client modification. That is incorrect, though w/o modification, operation would be as is currently the case (i.e. the scheme is intended to be backward compatible) with RFC 2476 (client can't distinguish whether server is MTA or MSA, has no control over modifications, etc.). Could you please explain specifically where you believe that the scheme outlined *requires* client modification. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf