Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id LAA13002; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:04:06 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:04:00 -0500
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id LAA12985; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:03:58 -0500
Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 666); 5 Mar 1996 16:05:46 GMT
Date: 5 Mar 1996 16:05:46 GMT
Message-ID: <19960305160546.4153.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

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

Oh, really? What percentage of SMTP servers support it?

For a parallel MTA it's certainly not ``absolutely essential.'' It's a
_slight_ bandwidth gain. I agree that, if it's ever implemented, it'll
save a couple of packets of latency. (If you care about this, btw, why
do you support always-EHLO?)

---Dan