At 3:16 PM -0500 2004/01/30, Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'd support such an effort. I think the right way to go about this would be to design a protocol (or perhaps an API) for MLM/MTA communication. I'd be less enthusiastic about a solution that was unique to a particular MTA.
Agreed. I think that would be a poor choice.Hey Brad, maybe you can dust off those protocol specs you once did. Or maybe you can make some first passes at a new specification. That would be a good jumping off point for approaching the MTA communities.
Sorry, we never got to the specs stage. We got to talking about things, then talking about the spam issue, and then the whole idea basically died right there.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)