On Sunday 12 November 2006 09:16, Tom Bowden wrote: > > (ii) SMTP/E-mail is not fit for all messaging purposes and should not be > portrayed as being so, it is not scaleable. This has been demonstrated > repeatedly and I do not propose to go into this in detail here. But such > as system has a place. Not scaleable. You need to talk to some people in the spam industry. ;-) > What has yet to be widely understood is that this is essentially a > commercial/political issue and not a technical one. True.
> The importance of end to end acknowledgement is huge. We agree, but you shouldn't, as this interferes severely with your business-model. You tell us "use HealthLink as we guarantee delivery" but if we have application-level ACK then why do we care who carries the message? > If the people that wanted things to actually happen got together with those > who know how to make it happen and ran the standards process (instead of it > being run by those that do not want it to work), we could make things > happen very fast indeed. Again, this is all good stuff but, again, you're at real risk of cutting your own throat. You need to comment on how this impacts with business-models. If the standards committee also set a *transport* standard (and if you really hate SMTP, let it be HTTP, XML-RPC, etc.) you have a big problem, as you (and all the other players, I'm not singling out HealthLink by any means) would be running around doing free installs for GPs, while your pathological and radiological cash-cows switch to a different provider and keep on communicating, How would you deal with this? Ian
pgpskhNtgXl70.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
