[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Per-session SMTP extensions
John C Klensin wrote:
(this is drifting off-topic enough that I changed the subject line)
Now, if what you really want as feature negotiation is a verb
that would supply a client capabilities list to parallel the
server capabilities list in EHLO, with some set of rules about,
e.g., picking the intersection, it is certainly possible under
the model. You would get pushback from some of us on the
grounds of complexity and additional complications in
multiple-relay environments (read the introduction to RFC 1425),
but that is another matter.
Well, to turn my own question back around at me:
It what ways does a single verb for announcing all the extensions that
the client wants to use differ from using individual verbs for each
Answer: it's a lot more complex, and a lot less flexible; the error
handling alone boggles the mind.
Never mind, bad idea. Thanks John.