mail-ng
[Top] [All Lists]

a few short notes

2004-02-01 08:56:28

[As the traffic for this list is significant and there are lots of things I want to respond to, I'm responding to several points in a single message.]

XML for headers: this is a *very* bad idea. I guess it is sometimes appropriate to use something as heavy as XML for the content, which is generated once and decoded once, but using this encoding that is expensive to manipulate and hard to implement efficiently at intermediate hops makes no sense.

I'm not convinced that using non-ASCII characters in headers is a good idea either. Headers must be simple and unambiguous. Having text in them that your computer can't even display and if it can, 99% of the world population can't spell, isn't a good idea.

Maybe it makes sense to have different types of headers: ones that are relevant to the sender and recipient only, so they can be in any format, and others that must be more general so they must be in ASCII.

Mandatory authentication is also a bad idea IMO. Obviously authentication is very important and must be supported so that people who only want to receive mail from verifyable sources get to implement this policy, but that doesn't mean that we should force *everyone* to use such a policy.

Chris Bonatti had something to say about multicast. Obviously this is something that applies to mailinglist rather than one-to-one messages. See http://www.muada.com/projects/usenet.txt for something like this but different that I think would work over a reliable multicast transport protocol.

Important point: as long as email is a store and forward mechanism, encrypting the transport makes little sense: encryption should be end-to-end.

Someone made the point that it is hard / impossible to negotiate parameters across multiple hops. I see no reason why this should be the case if we create a new kind of message: the control message. If we accept that the delivery of one message containing actual content may require several control messages to flow back and forth between the source and the destination, then this is no problem at all. Obviously this is more expensive in terms of transaction overhead and bandwidth (and it takes longer) but if this leads to less spam, worms and bounces for messages I never sent in the first place, I can certainly live with that.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>