ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
I agree it falls into the mediator category. But it if falls into RFC 5321
gateway category, it ends up dragging almost everything else in there
with it.
And we're left with a document that goes to enormous trouble to specify
behavior something that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist.
Ned, with all due respect, uou repeated this a few times and was going
to leave it alone, but it appears that is being used as premise for
change.
Lets not confuse Gateways as being just some heterogeneous network
transition point with two way transformations.
A gate would generally be just the final destination to a backend
storage system. It could be hosting in passthru fashion (old) or
presenting it for users (active) - s system that has the fundamental
components for electronic messages:
From:
To:
Subject
Date:
Body
The backend could be a common framework for a myriad of networks.
This is different from a SMTP relay which is homogeneous - the same
network.
I guess, we can have a RELAY-GATE if you consider that the backend
could be hosting and storing the reformatted passthru mail.
That is whats "old" and what still remains is that the storage is
available for reader as well.
We still have customers that can read the mail online, but they can
also be "small point", they can QWK, FIDONET into our backend servers
to pick up/sent mail gated from 2822 based networks.
To suggest this is all intents and purposes doesn't exist, well, its
not only untrue but we are seeing a "rebirth" of different and
traditional networking methods. e.g.; to lower the footprint for
small-device communications, to purify mail, to reformat into other
streams.
But that isn't the key point, whether is is or not.
It should not be the premise to eliminate or change a specification
regarding case.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com