Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA02577; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:12:44 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:11:39 -0500
Received: from info.cren.net by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id JAA02547; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:11:35 -0500
Received: from [192.52.179.12] (conklin-180c.cren.net [192.52.179.12]) by info.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.4 (CREN)) with SMTP id JAA05904; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:11:28 -0500
Message-Id: <199603051411.JAA05904@info.cren.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:16:45 +0100
To: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein), drums@cs.utk.edu
From: conklin@info.cren.net (Jim Conklin)
Subject: Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting

At  4:40 AM 3/5/96 +0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>I see that you have uncritically adopted RFC 1123's incorrect
>``efficiency feature'' language. Multiple RCPTs are a _slowness_
>feature. Except in extreme circumstances, good MTAs can achieve much
>lower latency with separate SMTP connections than with multiple RCPTs.
>(This changes in the presence of pipelining, but I'm talking about the
>real world.)

Pipelining _is_ the real world for mailing lists of any size!   It's
absolutely essential for large ListProc lists, for example, and used
widely.

Jim