Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!twg.com!david
From: david@twg.com (David S. Herron)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Is UUNET going to upgrade?
Message-ID: <9149@gollum.twg.com>
Date: 24 Jun 91 05:44:08 GMT
References: <1084@camco.Celestial.COM> <28609F47.1E0D@tct.com> <2085@ssbn.WLK.COM>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 38

In article <2085@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes:
>>According to bill@camco.Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell):
>If you're using compressed batches (I can't think of why you'd batch but
>not compress)

Easy .. by using BSMTP you don't downgrade your mail to RFC976/UUCP
format and addressing styles.  I see *this* as the big win.. but then
my personal mail needs from home are not that large.

>The other disadvantage to BSMTP is minor unless you have a lot of
>addressees at the same site for the same message.  It's the nature
>of SMTP, you queue up one copy of the message for each addressee.
>If you use the uux transport a single copy of the message is sent.
>Further, when you apply compression, I still think BSMTP is a win.

This is completely untrue.  BSMTP (as does SMTP) allows, and was
specifically designed to do:

	HELO <domain>
	MAIL FROM:<joe@place.com>
	RCPT TO:<...>
	RCPT TO:<...>
	RCPT TO:<...>
	RCPT TO:<...>

You can repeat that RCPT line as many times as you want.  If
the smail3 implementation does not allow for this, then it is
broken.  My BSMTP implementation specifically allowed for that, BTW.



		David

-- 
<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com>
<-
<-
<- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future