Date: 27 Mar 1996 22:00:00 +0200
From: kai@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <65gIWAzjcsB@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <v03005b05ad7cb2ecb500@resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: MSA/MDA proposal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.

dcrocker@brandenburg.com (Dave Crocker)  wrote on 27.03.96 in <v03005b07ad7f14f3bdf9@[205.214.160.111]>:

> 	You might say that we decide it by observing whether they are
> performing those functions appropriate to an MSA or an MDA.  Fine.  Why
> couldn't we do that with just the terms MUA and MTA?  If we have rules that
> say what MUAs and MTAs can and cannot do (and when they can and cannot do
> it), then how does the presence of additional modules help?

It helps because it makes the rules MUCH more obvious.

> 	In effect, consideration of MSA and MDA means that we are starting
> to define some of the internal components of UAs and MTAs.  That might well
> be useful, but if we are going to do it, let's do it carefully and
> thoroughly.

I do believe that's exactly what the UA-MSA-MTA-MTA-MTA-MDA-UA model does.

Of course, we should explain (in the overview text) that this is a model,  
and that concrete implementations can have completely different  
boundaries.

On the other hand, this model allows people implementing parts of it to  
clearly specify what they are doing. "Tremble Mail 2.7 is a UA+MSA  
implementation. It doesn't do MTA or MDA." I consider this a Good  
Thing[tm].

MfG Kai