Paul, >> When folks agree on the new mail transfer services that we need and >> when we try to add them to smtp and fail, THEN we can have productive >> discussions about a replacement transfer protocol. PV> well, except that that's not how dns was created, or http, or html, or PV> nntp, or xml, or rpc/xdr/nfs, or sip, or pgp, or jabber.
_New_ services get created in all sorts of ways and for all sorts of reason. However changing an existing, popular service is subject to very different concerns than a new service. In particular, it is subject to careful attention to preservation of the installed base. Facile assumptions that we will blithely move an installed base of 500 million people, to a new set of protocols, reminds me of a cliche cartoon. It has a blackboard -- it's a very old cliche -- almost filled with formulas, except for one blank strip that separates the formulas into two sections. The board is being explained by one guy to another. He is responding to a question, pointing to the blank space and says "that? oh, that's where a miracle happens." Switching 1/2 billion people requires quite a lot of force and time, and so do the hundreds of thousands of implementors and operators who have to make it happen. They need clear and compelling incentives for the considerable energy it will take and discomfort it will cause. So far, claims that smtp needs to be replaced, to fix spam problems, fail to provide anything more compelling than some strong emotions. Let's remember that no action to date has reduced the global level of spam. So folks need to be a tad circumspect when calling for massive infrastructure change for which there is no basis to guarantee results. >> And everyone else needs to move from the generic reference to >> "consent" on to something that is more concrete, as well as being >> integrated into a full range of human uses for email. PV> i'm pretty comfortable with www.dictionary.com's definition of "consent". Me too, for casual discussion, but it has nothing to do with technical specification nor for careful understanding of the human and social dynamics of messaging. Really, Paul. Pursuit of spam control needs far more detail and deliberation. It's urgent, but that's no excuse for being vague and generic. At a minimum, claims that we need to replace smtp need to include a specific proposal that offers specific features absent from smtp. And it needs to include a transition plan for those hundreds of thousands of operators and 1/2 billion users. d/ -- Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>
