Re: comments on draft-gellens-pop3ext-02.txt

Chris newman wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Tom Killalea wrote:
>
>> Given recent discussion on the GRIP WG list ([email protected]) arising
>> from draft-ietf-grip-hansen-xtnd-00.txt (which despite the name is *not*
>> a draft sanctioned by that group) does it make sense to explicitly 
>> discourage/deprecate XTND XMIT and indicate why it's a bad idea ?
>
>The draft says enough about this in the "Future Extensions to POP3"
>section.  It makes it quite clear that extensions which duplicate
>capabilities supplied by IMAP or SMTP are strongly discouraged.  Since
>"XTND XMIT" duplicates SMTP functionality (defectively to bat), it
>is therefore strongly discouraged and there's no way it could ever be
>standardized.

That's exactly why I'm lurking here...

It's quite clear (to me, anyway) that XTND XMIT doesn't duplicate
SMTP functionality (SMTP doesn't usually have sender authentication).

Whilst fixing SMTP to require authentication would be ideal that's
a lot less likely to happen than standardising a POP3 or IMAP send
extension. (Not neccesarily using XTND XMIT type protocol - as you say,
it's broken).

I get the impression that this has been 'discussed' at length somewhere
before - if someone could point me at an archive, or give me the gist
of the argument I'd appreciate it.

Cheers,
  Steve
--
-- Steve Atkins -- [email protected]