chuqui@plaidworks.com said:

I was thinking last night that what would REALLY, REALLY be useful here is an extended SMTP protocol that allows the VERPing to be introduced by the receiving SMTP server, rather than the delivery server or MLM. And after thinking about it, I went and laid down in a dark room until I got over it... (snicker). But if you think about it, the downside to VERP is you lose the efficiency of batching multiple addresses into a single transaction, so the solution is to extend SMTP to allow us to maintain that effeciency while building in the VERPing data at time of delivery...

However isn't this to some extent reimplementing DSN - which a lot of people are currently not doing because the spec is complex and opaque.
Exim doesn't DSN right now... I think I will spend time looking at this since up to now I have been accepting other peoples comments on that RFC

the problem seems to be sites that are running really downrev versions of things that nobody's watching or upgrading.

which is the problem with adding mods to SMTP or MTAs - we have to carry the people who don't follow the upgrade path.

I realize the last couple of days we've brought forward a lot of neat stuff and then decided it's best NOT to do it, but sometimes the best thing you can do to make a project work is define what it's NOT, so you can focus on what it is. And put everything else down in the TODO for a future generation to wonder about.

Definitely. Can we have a NOT_TODO as well with a list of the things and excerpts of the list discussion so that we don't have the same discussion set every few months.

Nigel.

-- [ - Opinions expressed are personal and may not be shared by VData - ] [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@VData.co.uk ] [ Phone: +44 1423 850000 Fax +44 1423 858866 ]