Re: Some existing proposals for next-generation email

At 11:16 PM +0000 1/29/04, Paul Crowley wrote:
>RSS is interesting here but as it stands it's only suitable for
>applications where missing an item is not disastrous, or where the
>total number of items ever published is few. ...
>
>IMAP and NNTP do not suffer from this problem, because the client can
>maintain state on what it's already seen and relay this state to the
>server.

So, let me say it again: this list is about determining the needs in 
new protocols, not fixing current ones.

To re-cast what is said above in terms appropriate for this list: 
"the receiving user agents in the next-generation protocol should not 
lose messages just because the user hasn't checked in a while".

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium