Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2008-10-06 at 20:19 -0700, Claus Assmann wrote:
>> Why not add support for PRDR? Take a look at the (unfortunately
>> expired) internet draft from Eric A. Hall:
>>
>> SMTP Service Extension for Per-Recipient Data Responses (PRDR)
>>
>> It is supported by one MTA (MeTA1, see http://www.meta1.org/).
>
> Reading the PRDR draft, it's almost identical in the protocol changes to
> EXDATA, which is an older draft and implemented in Courier, we're told.
>
> The real difference is that PRDR uses unwrapped response codes, so that
> you get multiple top-level responses, in the style of LMTP, but without
> claiming to be other than SMTP, which means that it's breaking the
> protocol. Mind, that doesn't matter much since it has to be requested.
>
> Since Tony is listed in the Acknowledgements for the PRDR draft, I'd be
> interested in knowing his opinion.
>
> -Phil
>
Sorry - been fighting heat and hardware problems on this server ...
Point w/r MeTA1 - there you go.
TWO implementations each of which work only to themselves.
Perhaps MeTAl has a more elegant approach. Or not.
But does it stay within the allowance for experimental extensions as
well as Courier?
Plus - it is still early days for the MeTAl project, whereas courier-mta
has been around for donkey's years.
