Sanford Whiteman wrote:
Is this your new take since your "it's MAPI" nonsense was rebuffed"
Please tone down the vitriol. I confused the specifics of two legacy APIs --
not hard to do when talking about the myriad of APIs Microsoft creates. CDONTS
was the one based on MAPI; CDOSYS, as you have pointed out multiple times, is
not (although CDOEX adds that back in to provide access to Exchange
functionality). There's no need to turn it into a major criminal prosecution.
I'll point out that your original snarky "OMG you've never hear of this! LOLs!"
message -- the one I replied to -- simply said CDO, not CDOSYS specifically.
You did refer to CDOSYS in a separate reply in the thread, but at that time you
weren't consistently identifying CDOSYS. There's not yet a Mind-to-Mind
Transfer Protocol.
You'll swoon for
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms978698.aspx#cdo_roadmap_topic2
"... is is the standard API for building bulk-mailing/Web-based
messaging applications..."
That's actually not saying what you seem to be asserting it is saying. Out of
the box CDOSYS provides limited implementations of SMTP and NNTP client
functionality; it is not and was never intended to be a full-fledged SMTP
implementation, or even a full SMTP client implementation. CDOSYS was optimized
for the types of applications that Microsoft thought it would be most used for
-- Web-based ASP applications or simple bulk-mail scripts. Web-based/bulk-mail
messaging applications are one specific type of application and many messaging
administrators can go through their entire careers without having to ever deal
directly with these types of applications they way they have to get familiar
with the specific clients their companies roll out.
All that aside, let's get back to your original implication that Alan was
somehow less than experienced with SMTP just because he'd not heard of CDO and
family. CDOSYS, CDOEX, and the System.Web.Mail wrapper are all client
application interfaces and not the actual transport protocol. There's no
conceivable reason an Unix mail admin, or heck, even an Exchange admin, have
ever really had to deal directly with CDOSYS and know it. I'd expect a mail
admin to know SMTP -- but I wouldn't *expect* them to know *any* API that
implements some or all of SMTP unless they were also a developer in the
appropriate programming languge.
Also for the record, I didn't say that CDO "predates 'SMTP mailers'" -- I
specifically said that MAPI (and the original CDO) were designed and written
"before SMTP mailers really rose to prominence". CDO 1.0 was introduced with
Exchange 4.0 in 1996, back before SMTP had fully won its status as the de facto
message transport standard. There were a LOT of other transports in existence
and wide usage back then; SMTP was merely one among many. MAPI and the original
CDO were intended for full compliance with the more complex X.400 standard, and
SMTP messages didn't always map well to CDO (you should have seen some of the
interesting test cases that came up with the original Exchange 4.0 and 5.0 SMTP
gateways specifically because of the X.400 <-> SMTP interoperability issues).
That's part of the reason why CDOSYS was necessary.
That's probably way too long of a way to say, "Dude, administrator vs.
developer" -- but that's what it comes down to. I apologize for my contribution
to the misunderstanding.
--
Devin L. Ganger, Messaging Architect <deving(_at_)3sharp(_dot_)com>
Exchange MVP, Microsoft Certified Master | Exchange 2007
3Sharp LLC Phone: 425.882.1032 x1011
14700 NE 95th Suite 210 Cell: 425.239.2575
Redmond, WA 98052 Fax: 425.702.8455
(e)Mail Insecurity: http://blogs.3sharp.com/blog/deving/
-------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/735/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/735/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com