Subject: Re: mailing list last call: pop and smtp sasl

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:27:53 -0800

At 5:26 PM -0800 11/26/97, John Gardiner Myers wrote:

>> There are cases where POP makes more sense.  POP makes much fewer
>> demands on the client.
>
>On what basis do you make this claim?  If the client only wants POP
>functionality, it's just a matter of which syntax to use.

Maybe, but I still think a simple POP client is easier than a simple
IMAP client.  POP is also much better understood.  And POP servers are
very widely deployed.  Upgrading a POP server to support SASL is a lot
easier than converting a POP server to an IMAP server.

Don't get me wrong: I very much support IMAP, and I agree that for most
uses IMAP is much better than POP.  But I think there is still a need
for POP.

If we get agreement on a standardized extension mechanism and SASL
authentication for POP, I think Qualcomm would support it in QPopper.
That would do a lot for SASL deployment.

--
Randall Gellens       ||    Opinions are personal; facts are suspect;
[email-masked]    ||    I speak for myself alone

Mistakes are often the stepping stones to utter failure.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 23:27:04 +0100

Chris,
note that the number of strange (and I mean REALLY strange)
proposals for POP extensions I've seen over the last 3 years
is quite significant.

POP's lack of an extension mechanism has been an advantage in
keeping the hounds at bay and POP reasonably simple.
A POP extension tool will be a strange attractor, precisely
because POP is so widely deployed.

IF we do this:
Can I draft you as part of the POP Extensions Review Team,
with License To Kill (and expect a fairly high kill percentage)?
One of the first ones to be resurrected will probably be the one
that wants to gzip the mail (AND bag it) before fetching it....

(apart from that, I tend to agree that extensions are better
than variations......)

                    Harald A

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:19:12 -0800

>because POP is so widely deployed.

I'd suggest that the extensions mechanism specify that extensions MUST
be published in standards-track or IESG-approved experimental RFCs.

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 16:30:58 -0800 (PST)

> because POP is so widely deployed.

I think the current draft addresses this point by stating more than once
that extending POP is usually not desirable.

> with License To Kill (and expect a fairly high kill percentage)?

Fair enough.

> that wants to gzip the mail (AND bag it) before fetching it....

Easy enough to kill -- it's only useful for non-compressing slow modems
which are almost non-existent these days.  Besides, compression belongs in
the same layer that supplies encryption -- doing it twice is
counter-productive.

		- Chris

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 16:39:29 -0800 (PST)

> be published in standards-track or IESG-approved experimental RFCs.

It's pretty close now:

     Capabilities beginning with the letter "X" are reserved for
     experimental non-standard extensions and their use is discouraged.
     All other capabilities MUST be defined in a standards track or IESG
     approved experimental RFC.

I'd be willing to drop that first sentence, but I'm not sure your company
would like it, given you support an experimental non-standard (and poorly
designed/architected) XTND XMIT command, at least in your client.  I left
it in with the premise that it's better to have the servers which offer
bad experimental non-standard features announce it to the world.

		- Chris

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:32:17 -0800

>bad experimental non-standard features announce it to the world.

I forgot about XTND XMIT.  The funny thing is, I hear that some ISPs
now require it in lieu of SMTP authentication and a submission protocol.

Let's keep the text as you have written it.

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:51:04 -0800

>now require it in lieu of SMTP authentication and a submission protocol.

That's true. It's being touted as The Solution To Spam. Of course, only if
you use Eudora and qpopper...

>Let's keep the text as you have written it.

Er, and Randy or Laurence: let's have an Internet Draft for XMIT. I'll
create a mailing list for it (or other POP extensions) if you'd like.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 16:27:53 -0800

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 23:27:04 +0100

Chris,

IF we do this:

                    Harald A

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:19:12 -0800

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 16:30:58 -0800 (PST)

Fair enough.

		- Chris

---

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 16:39:29 -0800 (PST)

It's pretty close now:

		- Chris

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 17:32:17 -0800

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:51:04 -0800

--Paul Hoffman, Director