Re: IM2000 Won't Be Worth It

>Between that, the lower incidence of UBE in her "inbox" (because of the
>different cost structure of IM2000), and the more efficient protocols, she'll
>use less online time to get her mail than she does today.

That begs the question: will IM2000 be worth it, will it be *so* good
at defeating UBM, that any pain associated with adopting and running
it will be worth it?

Responding to descriptions of such pain, provided in order to gain a
better picture of whether it'll be worth it, by saying "but it'll be
worth it" is circular, therefore, it begs the question.

Think less in terms of how wonderful IM2000 will be if it eliminates
most or all UBM, since you can't predict for sure if that can happen.

Think more in terms of how happy you'll be with IM2000 if we all end
up being at least notified about, if not sent, even *more* UBM than we
are presently sent.

That way, you don't just cross your fingers and hope for success; you
also prepare for failure, at least for that one assumption to be
proven incorrect.

The result tends to be that you favor more-ductile designs over those
that are less ductile.

Personally, given how I'd configure my IM2000 server, as a
*recipient*, especially as a victim of joe jobs, I'd probably be
happier with IM2000 than with SMTP; I wouldn't be receiving so many
bounces (though that is, strangely, less of a problem now than it was
early last year).

But as a *sender* who now has to either run, or hire, an outgoing
message store, I'd probably be *less* happy with it.  (SMTP bounces
aren't much of a problem for me here; I rarely send email that gets
bounced, besides, I'm about as happy getting them as I would be if I
had to track IM2000 deliveries myself or have my software do it
automatically.)

And, obviously, as a *recipient*, it *would* make me unhappy if a
substantial portion of my potential *senders* were unable to actually
send me email because they could or would not run, hire, or contact a
valid outgoing message store.

But for *them*, I'll probably always run an SMTP server they can use
to send me email.

I'd *rather* replace SMTP with something that allows push-style
delivery, though.

-- 
James Craig Burley
Software Craftsperson
<http://www.jcb-sc.com>