Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

At 04:16 PM 7/3/2002 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote:
> This "one address per copy" approach insures that there will ALMOST
> ALWAYS be wasted processing and message uploading in any situation
> where knowing the capabilities prior to message transmission would
> have allowed the piggybacking of additional addresses onto a copy of
> the message

If the sender already know the capabilities of the recipient, then the 
sender does not need to use ESMTP/CONNEG.  ESMTP/CONNEG is designed for use 
when the sender does NOT have that information.

There are a number of ways the sender might obtain capabilities before 
starting this SMTP session.

One example is 
<http://www.imc.org/draft-ietf-fax-content-negotiation>.  Another is, no 
doubt, via some LDAP-based directory.


> You need to decide what the
> trade-offs are

By "you" I assume you mean the aggregation of the implementer and the 
sending system's administrator.  There is no need for this specification to 
dictate that choice.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850