Michael(_dot_)Dillon(_at_)btradianz(_dot_)com wrote:
It might be a good idea to get to work on a new
mail architecture which would replace SMTP, POP,
SUBMIT and IMAP. At least now we know the use-cases
very well including many corner cases exploited by
criminals in their businesses.
Standard response to common, blanket call for replacing current Internet Mail
protocols...
<mantra>
When you:
1. Get anything that looks like a community consensus about the functional
requirements for email that are not being met,
2. Try to add them to existing email protocols, and
3. Fail
Then it will make sense to discuss replacement protocols.
Over the last 10 years, there have already been many attempts at the first step
and they have quickly failed.
Independent of the social and political problems of gaining consensus, the
functional difficulty is in defining changes that do not cripple the ability of
email to support the very wide range of human communication styles for which it
is needed.
It is trivial to design changes that cover only a narrow range of styles.
Although a wrong-headed path, even then, the hard question is *which* narrow range?
Email abuse is a social phenomenon, not a technical one. Nothing will make it
disappear.
The best we can hope for is to reduce it to tolerable levels, the same as for
any other criminal activity elsewhere in many societies.
</mantra>
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf