--On Friday, 04 March, 2005 23:35 -0500 Bruce Lilly <blilly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Bruce, Like Ned, I think history and deployment have voted and the community doesn't see any need for this. But suppose there is such a need. The change you propose is either compatible with the protocol as written or it isn't. If it isn't, then my earlier comments apply. If it is compatible, which is what you say above, then it has nothing to do with whether the document should move to Draft because nothing prevents you from doing a writeup of the specific extension(s) you propose as an I-D and see if you can get others, especially those who implement and deploy these sorts of things, interested in adding those extensions as a new Proposed Standard piece of protocol to be optionally used with Message Submission. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf