On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 15:10:29 -0400, "Stan Kalisch" said:
That may be, but I do not think, however, that this addresses Viruthagiri's
assertion about the cost being prohibitive for some in developing countries.
The point is that there's 3 basic cases:
1) You're outsourcing the e-mail to a company. The added cost for the webserver
will probably be close to zero, because if the proposal gets enough traction to
hosting companies will be able to do it at scale, and bundle it for free.
2) You're doing low-volume e-mail in-house. The added resources needed for
the webserver will probably be close to zero, because somebody will write a
"how-to" or even write an open-source program that you enter your domain name
and host name, and it writes the config files for you.
3) You're doing in-house e-mail at a volume that the web server resources
At this point, you're *already* going to be fighting with scaling issues with
system and the web server is the least of your worries....
Yes, in some situations the cost of e-mail for an organization can be
However, this isn't a proposal that doubles the cost of doing it. It's more
going to add a half-percent or so - there's probably going to be a half-dozen
applying more economic pressure.
And it's probably *far* too early in the protocol design process to be saying
but this *might* be a problem for a very very small percentage of sites" -
since we're talking about an *optional* extension.
Description: PGP signature
ietf-smtp mailing list