Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA26660; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:33:16 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.7); Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:32:05 -0400 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA26566; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:32:03 -0400 Received: from holonet.net (zen.holonet.net [198.207.169.5]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id WAA26538; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:31:56 -0400 Received: from default (ppp-206-170-65-210.grdn01.pacbell.net [206.170.65.210]) by holonet.net (Carl-Uno Manros) with SMTP id TAA20286; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:30:16 -0700 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970620023116.006b3aac@pop3.holonet.net> X-Sender: cumanros@pop3.holonet.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:31:16 -0700 To: John C Klensin , "Jeff Stephenson (Exchange)" From: Carl-Uno Manros Subject: Re: RE: RE: Deferred Mail Delivery Cc: John Samanick , "'Chris Newman'" , drums@cs.utk.edu At 09:24 PM 6/19/97 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > >On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 08:35:37 -0700 "Jeff Stephenson >(Exchange)" wrote: > >> Of _course_ you'd never trust anything outside your own trusted enclave >> with a deferred delivery message - I don't think you'd ever want to use >> it for anything but submission to an SMTP server which you control. The >> point is that a laptop machine might not be able to connect when you >> want the message sent, and many people turn off their desktops when they >> go home for the day, so having the client do a deferred submission is >> not always a viable solution. Also note that I was not actually >> advocating this in my comments, but just pointing out that we shouldn't >> dismiss the notion out-of-hand. > >Jeff, > >No real disagreement, except... > > * the facility you have just posited isn't analogous to >the X.400 facility any more. That one, unless my memory >has failed me, does anticipate the possibility of moving >the message to the next-to-last hop and holding it there. >On the other hand, X.400 assumes trusted mail systems in a >number of ways. > John, I think that your memory does fail you in this case. This was a subject that was discussed by a number of people over a long period of time during my time as the X.400 Rapporteur. I cannot recall the exact text in the document off hand, but I am pretty sure that it strongly recommends that you should let the first MTA (which presumably is in your own domain) should hold the message until submission time, both due to security considerations and for ease of deleting it, if you so choose. ---rest deleted--- Carl-Uno Manros