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

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

> > > > there is no reason why it cannot be a generic e-mail replacement
> > > > Implementation is relativally simple
> > >
> > > Deployment is not. Do you have the support of any of the major
> > > providers of
> > > email infrastructure?
> >
> > No of course not but that does not mean that it cannot happen
>
> On the contrary, unless you can persuade Sendmail, Microsoft,
> Lotus to take
> notice of you your project is dead on arrival.

you only need to convince one, the rest will adopt if not to do so will
leave them unable to connect


>
>
> > this is a research group. we should research and then make
> > recommendations
>
> This is an engineering workgroup, not a fantasy land workgroup.
> The scope is
> control of spam. Any protocol changes have to be feasible.
>
> BEFORE you propose throwing out SMTP you have to explain exactly what is
> wrong with it and the reason why incremental change is not possible.

Please re read my original post

I do not intend to throw out SMTP they are your words

pull *IS* smtp

with two extra steps outgoing request and incoming accept/deny

both can use the current infrastructure UNCHANGED

>
> You don't seem to be very aware of IETF history, but backwards
> compatibility
> and support for legacy systems has a huge premium. Forget persuading
> Microsoft, you are not going to persuade the IESG the need for a
> discontinuous change.


>
>
> IF the industry did decide to change the email protocol in a
> fundamental way
> any new protocol would be based on the Web Services framework.

fundamental change ?

again I refer you to my original mail

take a close look at the comparison (steps involved) between current and
proposed

>
>
> 		Phill



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