Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: RFC: Net::SMTP::Pipelining

by tirwhan (Abbot)
on Feb 18, 2009 at 09:54 UTC ( [id://744704]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: RFC: Net::SMTP::Pipelining
in thread RFC: Net::SMTP::Pipelining

Net::SMTP::RFC2920

Thank you for your suggestion, but I don't think I like it. When searching CPAN for a module to do SMTP PIPELINING, I would not use "RFC2920" as a search term (actually, I did search for that while researching the possible prior existence of this module before writing it, but only after trying a number of other searches first), I'd search for a term including the word "pipelining". And in fact there are several RFCs which specify pipelining (1854, 2197), and while 2920 is the authoritative one, it is quite possible that a user would only know about an older one and thus not even know what 2920 is. So unless there is any strong argument that you can make for using the RFC number in the module name I don't think it's a good idea. But thank you.


All dogma is stupid.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://744704]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (4)
As of 2024-04-25 20:53 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found