Re: IMC mail-ng

> IM2000 readers may be interested in the creation of the "mail-ng" mailing list 
> at the Internet Mail Consortium. The list is brand new -- not open to traffic 
> at the time of writing.

I think this is a great idea (and really on time)

> <blockquote>
> There seems to be more discussion these days about replacing SMTP and/or RFC 
> 2822 and/or POP/IMAP for a variety of reasons. The discussion seems to pop up 
> on a few different lists and in a few different hallways, and it might be 
> good to have a single list where folks can congregate. Thus, I have set up a 
> mail-ng mailing list.

Just thinking on what can be made with the mix of ideas already expressed in
each of the already existing individual mailing list, either all of them
converge or not, could lead to a very well defined set of requirements for the
new generation of mail servers.

> The first task probably is to determine what the next generation of mail 
> should do, and how that is different than what SMTP/2822/POP-or-IMAP or 
> instant messaging does. It is safe to say that we can ignore actual protocol 
> proposals for many months (if not years) until we figure out what is needed. 
> Once we do that, there are plenty of protocol people who can attack the 
> decided-on requirements.

We could line up the common falls of the existing mail protocols, that would
give a general overview of the problems, then propose fixes for those, and then
add those requirements in order to support future problems based in the
existing technologies.

As the internet, I think having a view of the functionality of the proposals
separated in layers could help to determine where each one of the proposed
parts of the new mail protocol will afect (or be applied), and in case of 
change, that specific part (idea) could be moved in the overall protocol
structure.

> There is no expectation that there will be significant agreement on the list. 
> It is likely that over time the discussion will split into camps of 
> like-minded design goals. The list might then spawn different lists for the 

I agree, all of this could provide a strong general proposal which will fork
for each specific needs.

> folks of the different camps (mail-ng-shoe, mail-ng-sandal, ...). The list is 
> explicitly not yet meant to be an IETF working group yet (if at all), and is 
> probably more akin to the IRTF. But at the beginning, it will most likely be 
> talking, not research.

Even better :)

Regards,
__________________________________________________________________________
Urivan Saaib
CiberNET Mexico 
Email: [email protected]
Tel/Fax: +52 (646) 1757195