RE: [Asrg] seeking comments on new RMX article

["Eric D. Williams" <[e-mail]>]

Perhaps the issue here is not mail transport at all.  In face I think what is 
at issue is gaining access to an MTA and not the mail transport protocol at 
all.  Let's say mobile user 'A' wants to send eMail.  She has multiple methods 
for accessing the MTA but only one mail transport.  The mobile user MAY 
leverage some other 'session transport' protocol to gain access to her 
applications MTA transport protocol.

If this is a valid scenario then a mobile user MAY not have to utilize 
'arbitrary' hosts in the 'void' to enable mail transport.  I am not clear why 
but the use of arbitrary disturbs me in this context I would be more 
comfortable with "assigned" or "designated."  Although I do understand why the 
term 'arbitrary' is apropos.

-e

On Sunday, May 04, 2003 9:56 PM, Dave Crocker [SMTP:[e-mail]] wrote:
> Mike,
>
>
> AD>> Are there NO other methods which a mobile user may use to send mail?
>
> MR> What about VPN?  What about stunnel?
>
> those are not mail protocols.
>
> MR>   What about smtp-auth?
>
> smtp-auth is an option to smtp.  so, it is smtp.
>
> MR>   What about
> MR> Courier's "outbox" for IMAP over SSL?
>
> I don't know what you are referring to, but it is not an Internet
> standard for posting mail.
>
>
> MR>   Heck, what about ssh tunnels?
>
> not a mail protocol.
>
>
> MR> Perhaps I'm not understanding your objection?
>
> possibly.
>
>
>
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:[phone]>, <fax:[phone]>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg