Thank you for the comments. > Email has been here for a long time and the terms are pretty well > established IMO. We should not try to reinvent them and try to adopt and > perhaps try to explain them in simpler terms. > > From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_agent_(infrastructure) and > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol > > Mail user agent (MUA)[4][5][6] > Mail submission agent (MSA)[7] > Mail transfer agent (MTA)[8][9][10][11] > Mail delivery agent (MDA)[8][12][13][14] > Mail retrieval agent (MRA)[15][16] > > I think we should focus on the above terms and align with the "industry" .
I agree with: * Email has been here for a long time * The terms are pretty well established * We should not try to reinvent [anything] * We should align with the “industry” I think there are some other things to consider not the least of which is that the terms, although well established, are not always entirely precise or clear. The language I have used in the document is language that was already being used by James. So your critique is not just a critique of the new documentation, but rather a critique of how James has been approached so far. There are other terms that are not in the list above, like: * SMTP Server * IMAP Server I am enamored with DDD, so I like the idea of having a “ubiquitous language”, i.e. a language that is shared between the actual users as well as the developers. If the developers use a tekkie language that the users don’t understand, it creates a large wedge. When I look at my email client (indeed, almost any client??) I do not see any of those above terms anywhere. What I do see is a configuration for “Incoming Mail Server (IMAP)” and “Outgoing Mail Server (SMTP)”. Those are the terms already being used by James. If we make the change towards the language you are proposing, then the codebase **MUST** be updated IMO to match the language. So although I agree with much of the broad statements you make, with regard to those terms in particular, what is the advantage in making such a change if it no longer matches what the users understand? What is the value? That is not rhetorical, I am interested in hearing your thoughts. Cheers, =David
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
