And since SMTP has been an utter and complete failure
in operations, I find that to be a dubious point.
Anything used by close to a billion people can't be classed a complete
failure.
The failure is not that it is ignored but that it is
so difficult to operate. Both the end users and the
server operators are unhappy with what they get from
the email system based around SMTP, POP, SUBMIT and IMAP.
It's like what Churchill said. It's the worst thing out there, except
for all the others.
There were no alternatives to SMTP on an IP network until
Instant Messaging came along. IM is wildly successful even
though it has the same problems as pre-SMTP email, i.e.
there are multiple incompatible protocols and networks.
It reminds me of the days people used to quote several
email addresses, Internet, MCI Mail, UUCP, Bitnet, Compuserve.
But even with these disadvantages, IM continues to gain
mindshare because SMTP based email is so terrible.
SMTP won in the market place because people want
the ability to send and receive messages on a non-prearranged basis.
This constraint tied to a complete inability to secure end points has
led to your headaches. Furthermore, the problem is not limited to mail,
but can be seen in IM, and may likely show up in other forms of
communication. Much of this is simply the nature of software.
It has nothing to do with software and everything to do
with architecture. IM networks have less problems because
all the participants share a relationship with the IM
service providers. Nobody has yet tried to build an
open-ended email network based on a chain of trust
between participants. Instead we have the flat SMTP
protocol open to all comers and two client protocols
that do NOT support sending an email message.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf