On 2011-10-24 15:38:16 -0700, Carl S. Gutekunst wrote: > Hector wrote: >>> Personally I think this is a solution looking for a problem. >> >> The cliche is nice, but there is a recognized problem and a >> reproducible proof of concept solution possible to help minimize the >> impact. > > Hector, I've seen nothing in the past two of weeks of discussion that > identify a "problem." It may not be a problem for you. For some (many?) users long and unpredictable delays in mail delivery are a problem, especially if the mail is sent during a phone call. Such delays can be reduced and regularized if the server can provide information about when to retry (and possibly other info, like the number of allowed concurrent connections) to the client. I really don't understand the resistance against the idea. Some servers and some clients will implement it and benefit from it (if they are talking to each other), others won't and for them everything will be as before. How would a standardized way of conveying the same information that some servers already convey informally hurt the mail system? hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | Web 2.0 könnte man also auch übersetzen als |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | "Netz der kleinen Geister". | | | hjp@xxxxxx | __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Oliver Cromm in desd
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature