Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:49:08 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr>, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Email push and pull (was Re: matthew dillon) Message-ID: <3E49C434.D8D497EE@mindspring.com> References: <20030211032932.GA1253@papagena.rockefeller.edu> <a05200f2bba6e8fc03a0f@[10.0.1.2]> <3E498175.295FC389@mindspring.com> <a05200f38ba6f51f20eff@[10.0.1.2]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brad Knowles wrote: > At 3:04 PM -0800 2003/02/11, Terry Lambert wrote: > >> There are lots and lots of really big questions that haven't been > >> answered about this kind of solution. This list (from the bottom of > >> this page) is just beginning to think about scratching the surface: > > > > [ ... list ... ] > > > > These are all "doable" today, with existing infrastructure, no > > changes necessary, if you accept that the messages being sent > > are minimally the RFC822 headers, just without the normal body > > contents. > > Isn't e-mail unreliable and slow enough that we don't really want > to make this situation an order of magnitude worse, because now we > have to send many smaller notices about a message we have waiting for > one or more recipients, and then we have to wait for them to come > pick it up? Why did you cut out my arguments against actually doing it, in your reply? 8-) 8-). > Why not just give everyone in the world an IMAP account on your > mail server and make everyone use shared folders? Security. Privacy. Concurrent access. Storage. Backup. You can actually get around all but "storage" and "backup", and those can be brute-forced. But you have to be willing to change IMAP4 semantics, slightly. > >> Indeed, I'd be interested to know if there is a single analog > >> anywhere in the world for this kind of system. > > > > 1) Lotus Notes. > > No, not really. Besides, we all know how poorly LAN e-mail > packages scale. Been there, done that. Just because the code you are familiar with was written by idiots, doesn't tar all code with the same brush. 8-). > > 2) Usenet, with cryptographically protected messages > > that can only be read by their intended recipient(s). > > Again, not really. Nice idea, but the OP said that the messages > themselves were never sent, only notices -- the message bodies would > then be retrieved via a pull mechanism. From a flood-filled, replicated store. I didn't say that the nodes containing the message replicas had to be local to the recipient. The usenet model is a good flood-fill replicated transport model. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E49C434.D8D497EE>