> > And since SMTP has been an utter and complete failure > > in operations, I find that to be a dubious point. > Anything used by close to a billion people can't be classed a complete > failure. The failure is not that it is ignored but that it is so difficult to operate. Both the end users and the server operators are unhappy with what they get from the email system based around SMTP, POP, SUBMIT and IMAP. > It's like what Churchill said. It's the worst thing out there, except > for all the others. There were no alternatives to SMTP on an IP network until Instant Messaging came along. IM is wildly successful even though it has the same problems as pre-SMTP email, i.e. there are multiple incompatible protocols and networks. It reminds me of the days people used to quote several email addresses, Internet, MCI Mail, UUCP, Bitnet, Compuserve. But even with these disadvantages, IM continues to gain mindshare because SMTP based email is so terrible. > SMTP won in the market place because people want > the ability to send and receive messages on a non-prearranged basis. > This constraint tied to a complete inability to secure end points has > led to your headaches. Furthermore, the problem is not limited to mail, > but can be seen in IM, and may likely show up in other forms of > communication. Much of this is simply the nature of software. It has nothing to do with software and everything to do with architecture. IM networks have less problems because all the participants share a relationship with the IM service providers. Nobody has yet tried to build an open-ended email network based on a chain of trust between participants. Instead we have the flat SMTP protocol open to all comers and two client protocols that do NOT support sending an email message. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf