Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA15240; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:24:08 -0400
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.6); Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:23:30 -0400
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu (WILMA.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.141]) 
        by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id NAA15192; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:23:27 -0400
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id NAA05285; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:23:25 -0400
Message-Id: <199607031723.NAA05285@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: eliminate QUIT? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "03 Jul 1996 17:20:21 -0000."
             <19960703172021.2343.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> 
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 13:23:19 -0400
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

> Anyway, I don't understand what you're worried about. If you're running
> SMTP over a crappy protocol, go ahead and send QUIT. What's the problem?

I think the only problem is that the proposal has been cast as
"eliminate QUIT" rather than "require TCP-based SMTP servers to do 
reasonable things if the connection is closed before QUIT".

Keith