Re: (SPAM: 6.602) Re: CAPTCHA over smtp (yet another spam solution to discuss)

David Sanchez wrote:

>>I fully agree with this view. For a *critical* email it makes *more* 
>>sense for me to get to know right away that it could not be delivered 
>>so that I can try other means of contact. For a non-critical email, 
>>*in the rare case the recipients email server is down* I can just as 
>>well press 'send' again next time I open up my email program. (If the 
>>receiver is not happy about waiting for that email, he should keep his 
>>email server running, or setup a redundant server.)
>
>Or make the whole Internet unbreakable, but incidentally systems fail,
>and networks go down.

And yet the web as we know it still exists.

>That's the fact and the WHOLE Internet was built with that idea in mind.

Email, however, partially predates the Internet and was built with the 
idea in mind that you may be online for maybe 5 minutes a day, on a UUCP 
connection or something similar.

>Again, IMHO an email without delayed delivering and retries is not 
>email, is just IM.

Last time I checked so-called instant messages used to be buffered by 
some centralized server that would send them out again when the 
recipient went online.

>IMHO the use proposed here is not email, is another thing.

Probably the thing that comes closest to most people's needs, though.


--Joachim