On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Marc Perkel wrote:
Not really - what I'm proposing is that the IMAP connection just pipe the
message into an SMTP server. The IMAP is acting only and an authenticated
connection back to SMTP. I'm not suggesting replacing SMTP. What I'm
suggesting is that POP/IMAP can be used as a transport to get the mail there
because it's an existing connection, is already established, is already
authenticated with the credentials of the email account, and it isn't a port
that people would block like port 25 is.
I'm not trying to replace SMTP. I'm just trying to suggest a better way for
end users to get outgoing email to the SMTP server.
Yes. You've already said that. What you're trying to do
is create an internet where SMTP traffic only occurs between
legitimate servers. You then claim that if such an internet
existed, there would be a huge impact against spam. I have
to concur that if that were true, spam would be greatly reduced.
Here's the problem though. We've got a logical syllogism here:
"If X, then Y." The "X" is "only legitimate servers speak
SMTP", and the "Y" is "spam will be greatly reduced".
I agree that the "if X, then Y" part of this argument is
sound. The problem is, for Y to logically follow, you have
to establish X. A syllogism works like this:
1. If X, then Y.
2. X is known to be true.
3. Therefore, Y is true.
Part 1 is called the major premise. Part 2 is called the
minor premise. Part 3 is the conclusion.
Your argument is missing the minor premise. You have to
establish the minor premise or your argument will have no
validity.
So then, do you wish to give up on your argument, or do you
wish to explain how you're going to accomplish this feat of
making sure that only legitimate servers try to contact other
servers via SMTP?
- Logan
