Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA02180; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:43:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by cs.cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:41:37 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA02008; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:41:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from info.dsv.su.se (info.dsv.su.se [130.237.161.221]) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id PAA01914; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from [130.237.150.138] (jph1.dsv.su.se [130.237.150.138]) by info.dsv.su.se (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA30938 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:40:09 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: jpalme@mail.dsv.su.se Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:37:00 +0100 To: IETF working group on revision of mail standards From: Jacob Palme Subject: Optimising mail to many recipients List-Unsubscribe: Suppose you need to send a large e-mail message, maybe with a one megabyte attachment, to ten recipients on another continent. It might then be much more efficient usage of the long-distance cables, if you connected to one SMTP server on the other continent, and sent one copy of the message, asking this server to forward it to the ten recipients. Until about a year ago, this could be done using almost any SMTP server. But I do not think it was very commonly used. Is the optimisation not worth the effort? Or are those who can do this optimisation not people who would benefit from it? About a year ago, most SMTP servers all around the world changed their policy, so that they only accepted messages to or from their local users. The reason for this change was to make spamming more difficult. Does the drums standard say anything on this issue? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Palme (Stockholm University and KTH) for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme