forwarding previously-private reply to Risto Kankkunen

[Paul A Vixie <vixie@xxxxxxxxxx>]

------- Forwarded Message

To: kankkune@cs.Helsinki.FI (Risto Kankkunen)
Subject: Re: proposed rfc on SMTP and 10646 
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 20 Feb 91 14:13:52 +0200.
             <9102201213.AA12179@keos.Helsinki.FI> 
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 91 09:06:08 PST
From: Paul A Vixie <vixie>

>> It would be nice, however, to remove those silly restrictions from SMTP
>> in addition to this. Can't we specify a binary option to the standard
>> and see if anyone wants to use it?

If we're going to solve the problem elsewhere, then there's insufficient
reason, in my opinion, to change SMTP.  If I thought that changing SMTP
was a low-cost option, I would want this "silly" restriction removed also.

I'm working on CMTP (C = complicated), which will have a different known
port number and will use a separate connection for the DATA.  I'm taking
suggestions for other changes; minimal security might be addressed, and 
I am thinking about changing the response to DATA from a commitment to a
delivery status, which would mean returning multiple responses, one per
RCPT.  I'm also thinking about moving the RCPT's to be after the DATA,
but that could be a lose.

Paul

------- End of Forwarded Message