On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dan Melomedman wrote: > SMTP is just a part of the infrastructure design, but it's not robust. > Some people have recommended better designs, but nothing has been > finalized yet. See cr.yp.to/im2000.html for instance.
OK, lets look at that proposed "better design" (http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html): | Each message is stored under the sender's disk quota at the sender's ISP. | ISPs accept messages only from authorized local users. | | The sender's ISP, rather than the receiver's ISP, is the always-online | post office from which the receiver picks up the message. Hmm, I need a server at my site that people can connect to to pick up the messages that I want them to read. Gee, I've got that Apache server sitting over there, I'll use it. | The message isn't copied to the receiver's ISP. All the receiver needs is | a brief notification that a message is available. | | After downloading a message from the sender's ISP, the receiver can | efficiently confirm success. The sender's ISP can | periodically retransmit notifications until it sees confirmation. The | sender can check for confirmation. There's no need for | bounces. Got it, I just send my recipient a one-line note with a URL that points to the message on my Apache server that I want them to read. I keep sending these brief notes until my server log shows that they grabbed that page. Now where have I seen something like that already? Ah, the Mr.Wiggly spam. ;) This is a GOOD thing to emulate??? Seriously though, this is a non-trivial problem that isn't going to have any good, quick, easy solutions. -- Dave Funk University of Iowa <dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering 319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527 #include <std_disclaimer.h> Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
