From owner-freebsd-chat  Sat Jun  7 10:53:13 1997
Return-Path: <owner-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA28729
          for chat-outgoing; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 10:53:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rush.aero.org (rush.aero.org [130.221.192.51])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA28724
          for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sat, 7 Jun 1997 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from altair.aero.org (altair.aero.org [130.221.192.64])
	by rush.aero.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA23967;
	Sat, 7 Jun 1997 10:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from altair.aero.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by altair.aero.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA06378;
	Sat, 7 Jun 1997 10:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199706071752.KAA06378@altair.aero.org>
To: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu
cc: scott@statsci.com, davidn@labs.usn.blaze.net.au, chat@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: uucp uid's 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 06 Jun 1997 21:38:14 PDT."
             <199706070438.AAA03147@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 10:52:31 -0700
From: "Mike O'Brien" <obrien@rush.aero.org>
Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>Depends on your viewpoint...I'm just trying to think of a way for a remote
>system to tell an SMTP daemon that the coast is clear and available for it to
>send the mail (rather than forcing it to have to endure network timeouts or
>some such).

Seems to me that this is what Demon (the UK ISP) does, instead of POP.
I'm not sure of the details on how they do it, though.

Mike O'Brien