On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 01:39:44PM -0500, Bruce Lilly wrote:
Less formally, the "duck" test (if it looks like a duck, walks like a
duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck) indicates it's not email:
it doesn't look like email, it's not accessed like email, and it can't
be replied to, forwarded, etc. like email.
(you're unfair ;-))) you deleted my question about webmail ;-))
I think with the above statement all webmail users would say that
their HTML pages are email.
So you are really saying that just by adding a few more buttons to
that would make it possibly to reply, forward would turn a HTML page
into a email?
So in general terms, yes, next-generation email will be defined in
terms of its format and transport as they relate to email functionality.
I don't agree with you here.
You can transport nearly everything with what we now call email, so at
least some kind of content-format is irrelevant.
Also, if I have a Web-Interface where people can key in messages and
the form appends it directly to my mailbox I will see it as email
but the transport was HTTP and not SMTP. And if there is a field for the
sender email address I can even reply.
SpaceNet AG | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"