Re: user-visible goals

Victor Engmark wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email protected] 
>>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly

>>We should keep in mind the excellent suggestions 
>>in RFC 1958. As this relates to user-visible
>>goals:
> 
> 
>>- users want a solution today, even if it is incomplete.
> 
> 
> Conventional email with way too many "patches" to accommodate for
> shifting user requirements is the solution today, and it is incomplete.

Users want a solution to today's problems with email as it currently is
implemented, especially spam and email-borne worms and viruses. They
want such a solution immediately. Other things, such as tie-ins with
instant messaging, etc. can wait.  We already have a number of conflicting
goals; in order to produce something in a timely manner, we might well
have to defer resolving some of those conflicts, i.e. the solution
will be incomplete.

> We should IMNSHO not let ourselves be held back by
> the way email works today, because this will lead to further "patches",
> and not the revolutionary new system this list is preparing goals and
> requirements for.
> 
> One of the requirements I see emerging from the partly conflicting goals
> is flexibility. The protocol should be extensible, and new extensions
> should be formally expressed and approved.

Isn't one person's "extension" another person's "patch"?  If not,
what is the distinction?  Is ESMTP an "extension" or a "patch" to
SMTP?