Disclaimer: there are people who know more about e-mail than I do, and some of them are on this list. But, to press on. Ummm, I'm wondering... in my own naive way. My memories of mail gateways involved SMTP-to-non-SMTP mail gateways, and the ones I hung around existed because one network didn't speak SMTP. I can't imagine that there's a meaningful mail system deployed today that doesn't speak SMTP (even if it's through a gateway). Why wouldn't we have mail sending applications that spoke (I'm making this up) SMTP and MT2, with different URL schemes (mailto: for SMTP, mailtoauth: for MT2) associated with our correspondents, let correspondents advertise both ways of being reached on Vcards, etc., and not worry about gateways? The idea would be that after I get my friends trained that they can send me mail at mailtoauth:spencer@mcsr-labs.org, and get subscribed to my mailing lists with this address, I could move away from mailto:spencer@mcsr-labs.org on my own schedule. If I hope I never miss an unsolicited e-mail (from my high school reunion group, for example), I might never move away. If I get tired of looking at UBE in languages I don't have the privilege of understanding, I might move away more quickly. But waiting for the deployment of a gateway infrastructure wouldn't affect my timeline, either way. I know this is the dual-stack IPv6 migration strategy two protocol stack levels higher - would that make any difference? He asked naively, hoping that an MT2-to-SMTP gateway wouldn't be necessary... isn't a lot of our mail munging the result of gateways now? Spencer --- Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> wrote: > At 03:28 PM 6/7/2003, Eric A. Hall wrote: > > >on 6/7/2003 1:40 PM Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > > and in this bof, i suggest that gateways to the current > system be shat > > > upon and never again considered. when we move, we'll > MOVE. > > > >That's not globally-applicable. Probably better to specify > the gateway > >tagging, and then ~Paul can reject mail that has the markers, > while ~Sales > >can devalue mail with those markers in their post-transfer > filters. > > Indeed, some level of gatewaying will likely be necessary for > transition, > and to accomodate intra-company use of embedded devices which > transmit > email alerts (e.g. UPSs, NAS boxes, etc.). > > > _______________________________________________ > This message was passed through > ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it, which is a sublist of > ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what > to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.