Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id WAA13668; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:50:05 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:49:45 -0500
Received: from koobera.math.uic.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id WAA13623; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:49:42 -0500
Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 666); 6 Mar 1996 03:51:16 GMT
Date: 6 Mar 1996 03:51:16 GMT
Message-ID: <19960306035116.11525.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu>
From: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Multiple RCPT-TOs

> No multimedia mail system based on DRUMS will be a success if multiple
> RCPT-TOs are not allowed

Whoa! Nobody is proposing disallowing multiple RCPTs. Someday I'd like
to have my MTA collect statistics and figure out, host by host and
message by message, whether it should use multiple RCPTs.

What I'm objecting to is the RFC 1123, and now DRUMS, insistence that I
_always_ use multiple RCPTs when possible. That's a bad idea, and it's
certainly not an ``efficiency feature.''

---Dan