Agree on both issues -- very convincing arguments for going ahead with SRV, but, as we find ourselves moving back into a world in which it is common for people to use multiple devices to access the same mailbox, I think it would be worth the investment to again see if we can make progress on properly-secured, client-device-independent, portable full configuration information.
john --On Friday, January 08, 2010 14:17 +0000 Tony Finch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010, [email protected] wrote: >> >> > I agree with Cyrus. Even if the market has reached a >> > workable compromise for the time being by using well-known >> > host names, it has done so at the cost of flexibility which >> > SRV records could provide. I think it would be very useful >> > to document the naming conventions that will allow current >> > clients to find the servers, but I don't believe that's a >> > reason to *not* document a more robust and formal SRV >> > record protocol as well in the hope that clients and >> > configurations will move to that. >> >> Exactly right IMO. > > Thanks for all your arguments. I have been convinced. Perhaps > I should be less negative about the likelihood of deploying > improvements... > >> I also fear that an effort to do something more elaborate >> with XML and web servers and so on carries with it a very >> high liklihood of failure, and even if we manage to agree on >> something (probably at some distant point in the future), it >> will then fail to deploy. > > Actually I'm less negative about this because it has clearer > benefits. For example it allows an operator to override an > MUA's built-in preferences. The big question is whether we can > get the various MUA vendors to co-operate instead of > continuing to do their own thing. > > Tony.
