Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Michael Rossi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 13:57:54 -0500
> > I would have thought layering a messaging protocol over existing email
> > protocols, would be a bad idea. It would be better to have a service
> > could contain proccessing components based on the type of message going
> > e.g. the DTD. and also make it secure e.g. SSL from the start. The
> Well, you are right in the sense that such a full fledged system is
> necessary. I agree.
> But at the same time I personally think that SMTP/POP3 can still work
> very well in many situations; especially for lightweight systems.
> Or, is it only me who feel like this? If so, what am I missing?
I don't think it's just you. A dedicated system/service could undoubtedly
yield some benefits for an environment with very robust requirements. But it
would also probably mean reinventing a few wheels along the way. I would
think you could meet a large majority of common requirements with an
adequate specification of how common transport protocols should be used.
> Yet unsolved question is whether such a component already exists or
I don't know of any components specifically designed to optimize this
environment. The WfMC (http://wfmc.org) did do a MIME binding of their
abstract interoperability spec, which now has an XML syntax binding in beta.
The intent of the original MIME binding was to exchange these messages over
common e-mail protocols. But I don't think they developed any tools to
facilitate the exchange, sorry.
Michael A. Rossi