Message-ID: <wp=AE_yMc5V20XZN40@aa.fv.com>
Date: Thu,  9 Apr 1998 08:50:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@aa.fv.com>
To: drums@cs.utk.edu, "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
Subject: Re: useless SMTP extensions
In-Reply-To: <19980409020807.26357.qmail@cr.yp.to>
References: <2107E82D78C2D1118A340000F8033450BFD3@VHAISFEXC1> <19980408230820.25725.qmail@cr.yp.to> <cp=2=vqMc5V20XZFM0@aa.fv.com>
	<19980409020807.26357.qmail@cr.yp.to>

Excerpts from bulk.interesting: 9-Apr-98 Re: useless SMTP extensions "D.
J. Bernstein"@cr.yp. (381)

> Nathaniel Borenstein writes:
> > If you're interested in saving bandwidth,
> > however, the ESMTP extension is potentially quite helpful.

> Have you ever profiled your bandwidth use?

Nope.

> Have you ever measured the actual bandwidth effect of ESMTP SIZE---
> counting the bytes used for SIZE declarations?

Nope.

I also don't regard either of these questions as terribly relevant,
since I see the whole point of the SIZE extensions as being forward
looking.  Like it or not, things like video mail are coming down the
pipeline, and any measurements you do today aren't going to tell you
much about how to optimize for such future scenarios.  They require
careful anticipatory analysis, not profiling of today's systems.
--------
In the long run men hit only what they aim at.  Therefore, though they
should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high.  -- Thoreau

Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@fv.com>          |  FAQ & PGP key:
Chief Scientist, First Virtual Holdings    |  nsb+faq@nsb.fv.com