I think it is totally impractical to talk about moving 100 million users to
anything. These are not the pioneer days of computing; there are hundreds
of millions of people using computers today, and you aren't going to move
them all to anything. It's rather like suggesting that North American
switch from 120 VAC to 480 VDC for home electrical power. It's not going to
happen. Look at QWERTY keyboards and NTSC if you believe otherwise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Paul Vixie" <vixie(_at_)vix(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 23:28
Subject: Re: Spam
Paul,
PV> once thinking that smtp would be the right answer for a global
population,
PV> or now thinking that smtp can be saved if we can just make abuse
expensive,
PV> is indicative of designers who think that the only consumers are Just
Like
PV> Them And Their Friends. they were but aren't, and they won't ever be
again!
Unfortunately, casting the issue in terms of saving or discarding SMTP
is also unhelpful. It makes sure that we debate lots of protocol
details, without having any basic agreement on the more import usage and
protection details that will drive the mundane technical choices.
On the other hand, a relevant point about current operations, versus
future operations, is how we move 100 million users. But again, that is
best discussed in terms of the users and their usage, rather than the
protocol details.
So: What is this better service supposed to look like? How do we
transition a very large installed base to it.
Extra credit: The transition question has more to do with user
motivation and choice than with technical engineering.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>