RE: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Pull System (revisited)

["Chris" <rebel@rebel.com.au>]

>
> 'Pull' is relevant within the context of obtaining content from
> sources that
> you regularly receive content from, it is not a generic email replacement
> protocol.

there is no reason why it cannot be a generic e-mail replacement
Implementation is relativally simple

>
>
> We already have two pull protocols, NNTP and RSS. NNTP suffers from the
> practical dependence on the broken peer-to-peer flood fill routing model.
> Although this is not essential to the protocol one of the responses of
> usenet to their spam problem was to demand that isps block external nntp
> connections. If you are on comcast you cannot connect to GMANE.

not relevant

>
> RSS is the emergent protocol, it supports richer content than NNTP, is
> considerably simpler and has a significant user base even though there are
> practically no clients (!)

not relevant

>
>
> My skepticism here is towards the distinctions made between push and pull.
> If you look at the standard email transfer it involves a push SMTP
> interaction followed by a pull POP interaction.

POP is unchanged

the purpose of pull is to enable the destination host machine (not the pop
client) to accurately determine the source without the need for structural
changes to the underlying protocol

low cost and effective.

but most importantly transparent to the clients.


> In NNTP you have the same
> type of interaction but the partitioning is slightly different. In effect
> you have the world pushing garbage at your news server and then
> pull out the
> small quantity that you are interested in.

not relevant. Though I will state that I first came up with the idea to
combat spam on nntp. I then realised its application to e-mail was much more
important




_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg