[geeks] nerd reading for a Friday night ... old-skool waxed

[Phil Stracchino]

der Mouse wrote:
>>>> I don't see why they don't implement compressed batch SMTP.
>>> Because the resources whose use it would improve are not worth
>>> improving (or at least are not generally seen that way), as compared
>>> to the downsides it would bring.
>> Looked at QMQP?
> 
> Then, no; now, yes.
> 
> I don't see that it addresses any of the points I raised against
> "compressed batch SMTP".
> 
> It makes no provisions for compression, nor for batching beyond what
> SMTP provides.  Its only win, really, is its reduction of round-trips,
> and it has significant downsides as compared to SMTP (notably, the
> inability to avoid receiving the whole message if none of the
> recipients are acceptable, and the lack of differential acceptance for
> different recipients).

Well, it's not intended as a general purpose delivery protocol.  Its
intended purpose is to shuttle batches of mail between multiple servers
at a large site.

Nevertheless, it does show there are people thinking about batch mail
delivery.


-- 
 It's not the years, it's the mileage.
 Phil Stracchino              phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net
 Renaissance Man, Unix generalist, Perl hacker, Free Stater
 Landline: 603-429-0220                Mobile: 603-320-5438