Or, the reality that with (at the time) a single dominant network provider made the inter-networking point moot. On 11/22/06 11:13 AM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> There were no alternatives to SMTP on an IP network until >>> Instant Messaging came along. >> >> not since X.400 over X.25 died, no. I thought you were older than that.... > > And there were all of the individual providers that Michael cited, such as MCI > 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. > > It *is* interesting that the diversity of disconnected email services was > viewed > as a basic problem to solve, whereas most of the Internet user community does > not seem to feel the same pressure to unify IM. > > Hmmm. Maybe IM satisfies a different set of needs than does email. So we had > better be a bit cautious about trying to generalize implications between them. > > > d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf