From: "Marc Perkel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:37 AM -0700 Marc Perkel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not just eliminate the SMTP protocol for end users and keep SMTP
as a
server to server protocol and have users send theit email to the server
by extending POP/IMAP to send email.
What's your objection to authenticated SMTP? It already exists, and
clients support it. All my users use it.
If IMAP had the ability to send email to the server then SMTP could be a
server to server protocol and IMAP would be the consumer connection
protocol. That would make it so that servers don't have to talk to end
users pretending to be SMTP servers. You could wall off port 25 and
isolate the spam zombies.
Earth to Marc, this has already been done in many situations. Earthlink
only allows smtpauth on the smtp-submission port. Experiment seems to
indicate that Verizon (hiss spit - for other reasons) has port 25
blocked, at least in this area.
About the only hitch is that I have to configure the server twice in
Mozilla. (It would be nice to have a checkbox to say that the SMTP
info is the same as the IMAP info, except for port number.)
If IMAP could send you wouldn't have to configure it twice.
If wishes were horses beggars would ride, too. IMAP submission uses
the wrong tool for the job when perfectly adequate tools exist. This
senseless vendetta against using smtp in any form is strongly
suggesting a pre-bias to your work which should be objective if is
to be honestly useful.
{^_^}
