Re: Zmailer shortcomings (re pop/imap clients)

[Michael Scott Shappe <mshappe@harper-hall.cit.cornell.edu>]

On Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:52:28 EST, davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA said...
>  A side point to the discussion: POP is intended for a simple post office
>pickup/delivery service, and it is by no means inconsistent with its design
>to add the XTND XMIT verb and use it for a bidirectional channel. Some of
>the other extensions (news service) seem harder to justify, but are
>simple-minded enough that no-one actually gets angry when they're mentioned.
>
>  IMAP, on the other hand, is by design a unidirectional service, with a
>fair bit of complexity to allow a wide range of services.  The
>author/specifier has good reason for not wanting to add a
>comparable-complexity posting service!  And I respect his wishes, even
>though I'd personally prefer that he invent that particular hairy beast
>(:-)).

There was actually a rather heated an lengthy debate on this issue on
the IETF-Remmail list a few months back. No real consensus was
reached, but there was a strong opinion that while SMTP was not 100%
adequate -- particularly in its lack of user authentication -- there
was not much point in inventing a new protocol just for use by
clients; many felt that this would be the equilvilent of locking the
door while your window was wide open.


/mss1