On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> SMTP is just a part of the infrastructure design, but it's not robust.
> Some people have recommended better designs, but nothing has been
> finalized yet. See cr.yp.to/im2000.html for instance.
OK, lets look at that proposed "better design"
(http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html):
| Each message is stored under the sender's disk quota at the sender's ISP.
| ISPs accept messages only from authorized local users.
|
| The sender's ISP, rather than the receiver's ISP, is the always-online
| post office from which the receiver picks up the message.
Hmm, I need a server at my site that people can connect to to pick up
the messages that I want them to read. Gee, I've got that Apache
server sitting over there, I'll use it.
| The message isn't copied to the receiver's ISP. All the receiver needs is
| a brief notification that a message is available.
|
| After downloading a message from the sender's ISP, the receiver can
| efficiently confirm success. The sender's ISP can
| periodically retransmit notifications until it sees confirmation. The
| sender can check for confirmation. There's no need for
| bounces.
Got it, I just send my recipient a one-line note with a URL that
points to the message on my Apache server that I want them to read.
I keep sending these brief notes until my server log shows that they
grabbed that page.
Now where have I seen something like that already?
Ah, the Mr.Wiggly spam. ;)
This is a GOOD thing to emulate???
Seriously though, this is a non-trivial problem that isn't going
to have any good, quick, easy solutions.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
> SMTP is just a part of the infrastructure design, but it's not robust.
> Some people have recommended better designs, but nothing has been
> finalized yet. See cr.yp.to/im2000.html for instance.
OK, lets look at that proposed "better design"
(http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html):
| Each message is stored under the sender's disk quota at the sender's ISP.
| ISPs accept messages only from authorized local users.
|
| The sender's ISP, rather than the receiver's ISP, is the always-online
| post office from which the receiver picks up the message.
Hmm, I need a server at my site that people can connect to to pick up
the messages that I want them to read. Gee, I've got that Apache
server sitting over there, I'll use it.
| The message isn't copied to the receiver's ISP. All the receiver needs is
| a brief notification that a message is available.
|
| After downloading a message from the sender's ISP, the receiver can
| efficiently confirm success. The sender's ISP can
| periodically retransmit notifications until it sees confirmation. The
| sender can check for confirmation. There's no need for
| bounces.
Got it, I just send my recipient a one-line note with a URL that
points to the message on my Apache server that I want them to read.
I keep sending these brief notes until my server log shows that they
grabbed that page.
Now where have I seen something like that already?
Ah, the Mr.Wiggly spam. ;)
This is a GOOD thing to emulate???
Seriously though, this is a non-trivial problem that isn't going
to have any good, quick, easy solutions.
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{