Received: from localhost by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id EAA05265; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 04:18:25 -0500
Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.4); Wed, 6 Mar 1996 04:17:57 -0500
Received: from wilma.cs.utk.edu by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK)
	id EAA05207; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 04:17:53 -0500
Received: from LOCALHOST by wilma.cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.11c-UTK)
          id DAA03455; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 03:52:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199603060852.DAA03455@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
To: djb@koobera.math.uic.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Multiple RCPT-TOs 
In-reply-to: Your message of "06 Mar 1996 03:51:16 GMT."
             <19960306035116.11525.qmail@koobera.math.uic.edu> 
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 03:52:32 -0500
Sender: moore@cs.utk.edu

> 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.''

okay, I think I see what you're getting at.

Though, of course, it is an efficiency feature -- if you're thinking
in terms of using bandwidth efficiently.  Conserving bandwidth rather
than latency seems like the right thing to do in the general case, 
though not in every case.

Keith