--On Friday, 16 November, 2007 09:33 -0500 John Leslie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> ... including my usual problem of not liking to have to be
>> online to read and reply to messages
>
> Evidently there is something in the draft which led John K
> to believe this problem would arise. That was not our
> intention, and it would help to point out the text in question
> so we can fix it.
>
> In the normal case, the TBR URI would be retrieved by a
> well- connected MTA on the receiver's Administrative
> Management Domain, and the (reconstructed) email would be
> forwarded as a non-TBR message to the recipient's message
> store.
Sorry, John.
I believe that delegating that sort of authority to the
"well-connected MTA" in the general case constitutes a far worse
operational or security compromise than anything the TBR
procedure could help with. An ADMD is a useful convenience for
modeling but, for the Internet, has little actual meaning in the
general case. The user of a commercial email service that
provides free mailboxes, or the user of an ISP's mail system,
has _no_ practical control over the behavior of the relevant
servers, despite sharing an ADMD. Yes, I control my mail
servers and someone receiving mail through the servers of an
enterprise for which she works could be reasonably though of as
being within the same narrowly-defined ADMD, but, in the general
case, no.
And, for that general case, one either
* needs to retrieve or fetch the TBR message onto user
equipment and then do the retrieval -- a process that
cannot guarantee that the relevant machines are
well-connected
* or needs to engage in filtering in the middle of the
network, outside the user's practical (as distinct from
theoretical) administrative control.
the second is a show-stopper for me, as well as a security
problem, etc., etc. And the first raises the problems with poor
connections and fast-synch requirements.
john
