Subject: Re: 3.93 smtp-server design flaw/bug

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 18:34:40 -0700

Randall -

     The brief answer to your request is that the requirement for MX
records has to do with MTA (Mail Transfer Agent, a.k.a. "mailer") 
interchange with other MTAs. Pine's SMTP code is not, and is not intended
to be, an MTA.  It is merely mechanism for queueing a message to an MTA. 
There are no RFC requirements on a mechanism for queueing to an MTA.

     I believe that you may have a serious misunderstanding of the use and
purpose of MX records.  Although what you suggest may be a useful
extension of the current usage of MX records, it is not what MX records
were intended to do, much less "required" by anything short than a full
MTA.

     I also suggest that if you have a problem of the magnitude that you
claim, that you need to consider other mechanisms of addressing it, such
as a dedicated machine whose sole purpose is to accept incoming SMTP from
clients such as Pine, Netscape, Eudora, etc. as opposed to accepting email
from the net.  An MX record implementation would solve the "can't post to
the known SMTP servers" problem, but it won't solve the severe performance
problems that you will entail in trying multiple servers.  MX hunts are
for programs, not for user interfaces with real-time performance needs.

     Your request, in effect, is that Pine incorporate an MTA.  We will
consider this suggestion, but frankly, there are higher priority items on
our task list.

-- Mark --

DoD #0105, R90/6 pilot, FAX: (206) 685-4045  ICBM: N 47 39'35" W 122 18'39"
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.