On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:20:58PM -0500, Alan DeKok wrote:
And why aren't they using the technologies designed specifically to
address the "roaming user" issue?
By "they", do you mean the end-users, or the ISPs? my example was meant
more to highlight problems introduced by the intermediary transit (the
ISP, e.g., via a transparent proxy) than by the end-user or the
administrators of the end-user's desired MX (or, more likely, by
policies the administrators must obey).
Eventually, roaming users will discover that certain technologies
won't get their messages through, and they will switch to
technologies which work.
This sounds as though you believe all the power lies with the end-user.
In many instances, the end-user is powerless to effect change in the
intermediary ISP (except by discontinuing service -- not always an
option) or in the end-user's desired MX (except by discontinuing use of
the MX -- not realistic when it's the end-user's employer).
I'd prefer everyone move to secure, authenticated mail exchange, but the
reality is that it hasn't occurred. Getting organizations --
particularly large ones -- to make widespread client-side changes would
be difficult. That's why I'd prefer a recommendation that's transparent
to the end-user if at all possible: it stands a greater chance of
adoption.
--
Mark C. Langston Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org
mark(_at_)seti(_dot_)org
Systems & Network Admin SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org http://www.seti.org