Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
From: Philip Hazel <[email-masked]>
To: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:21:33 +0100 (BST)
List-Id: <ietf-smtp.imc.org>

On 28 Sep 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:

> We much prefer POP from the server side.  

We don't, but then we have permanently connected clients that keep 
probing for new mail at regular intervals. POP requires a password 
authentication for each probe, and a download of the entire mailbox to 
check for new messages. When the users set their probe interval 
ridiculously short (e.g. 1 minute), and leave several megabytes in their 
mailboxes, this hits the machine badly. We make a continuous effort to
educate the users to probe no more than every 5 minutes, and not to set
"leave mail on server", but people being what they are, this is a battle
that can never be entirely won.

IMAP, in contrast, because it keeps a session going throughout, and 
doesn't need to download the entire mailbox to find the list of 
messages, is much lighter on the server.

> Of course, the users understandably want the features of IMAP so we're
> getting pushed in that direction, but there will definitely be a price
> corresponding to much higher server resources and administrative time
> needed over POP.

So I would argue that that isn't always the case (at least for server 
resources). I realise, of course, that in a different scenario, the 
trade-offs are different.

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
[email-masked]      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.

To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Organization: The Eyrie
Date: 28 Sep 2000 15:29:17 -0700
Lines: 21
Sender: [email-masked]

Lee Thompson <[email-masked]> writes:

> I wouldn't say POP3 is dying.  At least not from where I sit.  Most ISPs
> appear to not want to be message stores for people either.  (Large
> corporations and Universities, I'm sure, love IMAP.)

We much prefer POP from the server side.  The protocol is far simpler
(after having had to implement a very small portion of the IMAP protocol
once, I'm rather afraid of it; I think it's one of the most complicated
and difficult protocols that I've seen), the clients are far more reliable
(we rarely see oddities with POP clients, but IMAP clients routinely do
all sorts of strange things), and a POP server is much lighter weight on
the server side and can handle significantly more users.

Of course, the users understandably want the features of IMAP so we're
getting pushed in that direction, but there will definitely be a price
corresponding to much higher server resources and administrative time
needed over POP.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:30:03 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Organization: AT&T Laboratories
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
Sender: [email-masked]

Something lots of people miss is that IMAP doesn't >>require<< the
support for server-side mailboxes (other than INBOX). It's purely a
server-side decision whether or not to allow messages to be stored
there.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

Lee Thompson wrote:
> 
> > For POP, the protocol is arguably dying in favor of IMAP4.
> 
> Here's your argument :)
> 
> I wouldn't say POP3 is dying.   At least not from where I sit. Most ISPs
> appear to not want to be message stores for people either.  (Large
> corporations and Universities, I'm sure, love IMAP.)

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
To: Lee Thompson <[email-masked]>
cc: Kumar Gaurav Khanna <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
Sender: [email-masked]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:04 -0700, Lee Thompson wrote:

> > For POP, the protocol is arguably dying in favor of IMAP4.
> 
> Here's your argument :)
> 
> I wouldn't say POP3 is dying.   At least not from where I sit.    Most ISPs
> appear to not want to be message stores for people either.  (Large
> corporations and Universities, I'm sure, love IMAP.)
> 
> 
> My Two Cents anyway

Considering that:

 o IMAP has a proposed standard to do this already (RFC2193)
 o SMTP should probably utilize AUTH to help redirect someone to a
   correct server

it seems the proposal is only really applicable to POP3, then, yes?

If so, how about rewriting it so it only extends POP3.

It would seem most useful, however, to use ACAP and connect to a default
server, say, acap.default.com, and ask it for the SMTP, POP3, IMAP4, LDAP,
IPP, etc. servers that are appropriate for the user.  Confining the
solution to only email solves only about 3/4 of the configuration that
typically has to be done of applications to find servers.

-d

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:20:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
To: Lee Thompson <[email-masked]>
Cc: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>, Kumar Gaurav Khanna <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
Sender: [email-masked]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Lee Thompson wrote:

> I wouldn't say POP3 is dying.   At least not from where I sit.    Most ISPs
> appear to not want to be message stores for people either.

A common misconception. Nothing requires an IMAP server provide anything
other than INBOX (or any folders at all for that matter), and both IMAP
and POP clients can decide to leave read messages on the server or not.

--lyndon

From: "Lee Thompson" <[email-masked]>
To: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
Cc: Kumar Gaurav Khanna <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:04:57 -0700
Organization: Seattle Lab, Inc.
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

> For POP, the protocol is arguably dying in favor of IMAP4.

Here's your argument :)

I wouldn't say POP3 is dying.   At least not from where I sit.    Most ISPs
appear to not want to be message stores for people either.  (Large
corporations and Universities, I'm sure, love IMAP.)

My Two Cents anyway

-- 
Lee Thompson                       [email-masked]
Seattle Lab Inc.           http://www.seattlelab.com
Software Engineer                      ICQ: 19545760

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Wing <[email-masked]>
To: Kumar Gaurav Khanna <[email-masked]>
cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi.

[I have CC'd [email-masked], as it may be a slightly more appropriate
list.]

This puts the onus on the client to know its server.  There are other
protocols which solve this problem at various levels such as ACAP, LDAP,
and DNS SRV records.

For SMTP, the problem is solved with MX records.

For POP, the protocol is arguably dying in favor of IMAP4.

For IMAP4, have you considered RFC2193, which appears to already provide a
mechanism for the behavior you desire?

-Dan Wing

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 20:56 +0530, Kumar Gaurav Khanna wrote:

> Hello Everyone :)
> 
> I have proposed a an internet-draft take care of the problems faced
> while proxying the mail (SMTP, POP3 and IMAP) protocols. I submitted
> it to the IETF today. Lets see what happens... Meanwhile, kindly go
> through the attached document which details the draft, discussing the
> need, problems faced, and the solution suggested.
> 
> Yours Sincerely,
> Kumar Gaurav Khanna
> 
> WinTools on the web - http://www.wintools.f2s.com/
> Email: [email-masked]
>           [email-masked]
>           [email-masked]
> 
> 

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:11:47 -0700
To: [email-masked]
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Subject: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-motonori-ipv6-smtp-requirement-00.txt
Sender: [email-masked]

This new draft may be of interest to the lists.

>To: IETF-Announce: ;
>From: [email-masked]
>Reply-to: [email-masked]
>Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-motonori-ipv6-smtp-requirement-00.txt
>Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 06:44:19 -0400
>Sender: [email-masked]
>
>
>
>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>
>
>	Title		: IPv6 SMTP operational requirements
>	Author(s)	: M. Nakamura, J. Hagino
>	Filename	: draft-motonori-ipv6-smtp-requirement-00.txt
>	Pages		: 6
>	Date		: 05-Sep-00
>
>The memo lists operational requirements for IPv6 SMTP, and IPv6-capable
>MX DNS records.  As we deploy IPv6 SMTP servers, it became apparent that
>we need certain configuration in IPv6-capable MX DNS record, for stable
>dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6) SMTP operations.  The document tries to
>clarify the problems we have in transition period between IPv4 SMTP and
>IPv6 SMTP, and operational requirements for stable IPv4/v6 SMTP
>operation.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-motonori-ipv6-smtp-requirement-00.txt
>
>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
>"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
>type "cd internet-drafts" and then
>	"get draft-motonori-ipv6-smtp-requirement-00.txt".
>
>A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
>Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
>Send a message to:
>	[email-masked].
>In the body type:
>	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-motonori-ipv6-smtp-requirement-00.txt".
>
>NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
>	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
>	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
>	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
>	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
>	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
>	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
>	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
>	how to manipulate these messages.
>
>
>Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>Internet-Draft.
>
>
>[The following attachment must be fetched by mail. Command-click the 
>URL below and send the resulting message to get the attachment.]
><mailto:[email-masked]?body=ENCODING%20mime%0D%0AFILE%20/internet-drafts/draft-motonori-ipv6-smtp-requirement-00.txt>
>[The following attachment must be fetched by ftp.  Command-click the 
>URL below to ask your ftp client to fetch it.]
><ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-motonori-ipv6-smtp-requirement-00.txt>

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium