Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA09217; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:29:43 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:29:26 -0500 Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id KAA09178; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:29:24 -0500 Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 666); 5 Mar 1996 15:31:14 GMT Date: 5 Mar 1996 15:31:14 GMT Message-ID: <19960305153114.4101.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein) To: drums@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: proposed agenda for 8 March WG meeting > Your mostly-unused 10 Mbps LAN is probably not a good testbed for your > theory. My 14.4k and 56k lines, however, are wonderful testbeds. Everyone who has actually tried this out rather than shouting ``That's ridiculous!'' has come to the same conclusion. Profile. Don't speculate. > PIPELINING is the solution for latency problems in SMTP. In ten years, perhaps, but a good MTA is the solution _right now_. > I suggest you focus your energy on implementing it. Why? It's like 8BITMIME: quite a bit of effort for _at best_ a slight return and _right now_ essentially zero return. I have lots of more urgent things to do. ---Dan