> 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. OK, fine, it doesn't *require* client modification, but client modification is necessary for the scheme to offer much benefit. It's still a solution looking for a problem. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf