Steve Thomas wrote: > > SMTP is just a part of the infrastructure design, but it's not robust. > > I disagree. It was designed in such a way so that no message could ever be > completely lost, barring a catastrophic event (disk crash, alien invasion.. ;)
You are not talking about SMTP, you are talking about the infrastructure in that sentence. > > > Some people have recommended better designs, but nothing has been > > finalized yet. See cr.yp.to/im2000.html for instance. > > Interesting, but I don't see how it's a better design. It might help curb the > spam problem, but in no way is it robust. What it does is make e-mail slow > and unreliable. Storing messages on the sender's server is (IMHO) not a good > solution. Reread that page, you obviously don't understand it.
