Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols

Tony Hansen <tony@att.com> Thu, 28 September 2000 21:31 UTC

Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA03124 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:31:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA06740; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:31:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:31:05 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA06694; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:31:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id RAA06680; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:30:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ckmso1.proxy.att.com (12.20.58.69 -> ckmso1.att.com) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:30:59 -0400
Received: from dns.maillennium.att.com ([135.25.114.99]) by ckmso1.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-2.2) with ESMTP id RAA09966 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:30:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from att.com ([135.197.90.139]) by maillennium.att.com (labmail) with SMTP id <20000928212836099004c6vre> (Authid: tony@maillennium.att.com); Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:28:36 +0000
Message-ID: <39D3B85B.8DF8EC06@att.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 17:30:03 -0400
From: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>
Organization: AT&T Laboratories
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lt@seattlelab.com
CC: drums@cs.utk.edu, ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
References: <003a01c0289d$78276c80$aa7a83ca@WIN95> <0009280820350.9022-100000@omega.cisco.com> <bgc7ts4q0qghd3ns2bskk2g4c3g84sd4v8@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Something lots of people miss is that IMAP doesn't >>require<< the
support for server-side mailboxes (other than INBOX). It's purely a
server-side decision whether or not to allow messages to be stored
there.

	Tony Hansen
	tony@att.com

Lee Thompson wrote:
> 
> > For POP, the protocol is arguably dying in favor of IMAP4.
> 
> Here's your argument :)
> 
> I wouldn't say POP3 is dying.   At least not from where I sit. Most ISPs
> appear to not want to be message stores for people either.  (Large
> corporations and Universities, I'm sure, love IMAP.)