[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: smtp charter (revised)
> For the record, I support Stef's suggestion for a new port number for 8-bit
Technically I agree. I wonder (aloud) the difference between accepting
SMTP++ on a new port number, versus the acceptance of X.400. Both
are a "new" protocol, admittedly SMTP++ has the advantage of similarity
to existing practice and easy implementation as opposed to X.400
which is very different & much harder to implement.
> I would support any SMTP extension or modification proposal that involves a
> new port number. I recommend (at least) the following changes in new SMTP:
> 1) 8 bit instead of 7 bit character set
> 2) no "lines" in message. Everything between "DATA<cr><lf>" and
> "<cr><lf>.<cr><lf>" is a byte stream that is transferred in image form.
> This removes both line length and non-binary restrictions.
My first thought was: But Wait! What if those 5 characters are in
the data?!? Almost immediate answer: stuff in some DLE type characters?
> 3) Explicit batching support; definition of server states when a command
What do you mean by "batching"? There are at least two things you
1) BSMTP. That is, bundle up the sender half of the conversation
into a file and push this through a file-transfer-protocol as
one bundle to the recieving process. Useful for networks where
file-transfer is the unit of interaction (e.g. BITNET and UUCP).
2) Accumulate the "MAIL FROM:<>" and "RCPT TO:<>" commands into
one group to be sent across the wire at one time. Useful
in cutting down on the number of round trips required to send
a message with a lot of recipients.