| 1 |
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ |
| 2 |
On Thursday, August 20, 2020 11:41 AM, antlists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Will that python script allow for the situation that the message is |
| 5 |
> received, but the message was NOT safely stored for onwards transmission |
| 6 |
> before the receiver crashed, and as such the message has not been |
| 7 |
> SUCCESSFULLY received? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> SMTP has lots of things specifically meant to ensure messages survive |
| 10 |
> the internet jungle on their journey ... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
thanks for the point. would it suffice if we have |
| 13 |
these notifications: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
1. receipt by final mail server (mandatory). |
| 16 |
2. receipt by end user(s) (optional). |
| 17 |
3. opening by end user(s) (optional). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
---- |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
(1) is required by the server, else mail will be |
| 24 |
retransmitted from source relay(s) (or client if |
| 25 |
done directly). (2) is optional by final server, |
| 26 |
(3) is optional by end user's client. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
the job of a relay would be to optionally add some |
| 29 |
metadata (e.g. maybe describing sender's role) and |
| 30 |
sign the whole thing (e.g. by company's private |
| 31 |
key). this way we can have group-level rules. |
Archives