Re: [imap5] Feature set? - was Re: Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On Thu Feb 16 11:40:37 2012, Adrien de Croy wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17/02/2012 12:22 a.m., Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Thu Feb 16 10:58:51 2012, Adrien de Croy wrote:
>>> how many corporates deploy XMPP services?
>>> 
>>> 
>> Approaching 10% and growing, at least by some metrics:
>> 
>> http://eggert.org/meter/xmpp.html
> 
> OK.. I'm struggling to understand why...
> 
> 
What, why corporates deploy XMPP? That's wildly off-topic for this  
list.

>>> That's why I keep going back to the 1 port like a broken record.   
>>> Maybe it should just be an SSH tunnel... but that;s  
>>> back-pedalling quickly and reducing potential user experience  
>>> with it.
>>> 
>>> 
>> No, I think it's an orthogonal issue.
> 
> maybe, but nonetheless real, especially for ISP tech support staff.
> 
> Just trying to think of "cheap" ways to get single sign on and  
> single port using the existing protocols.  But it would still be a  
> bandaid.
> 
> Auto config is a band-aid as well to the solution of multiple sets  
> of creds.
> 
> 
It's just part of reducing manual configuration, which we're all  
agreed is a good thing.

Using multiple ports has no bearing, though.

>> Right, sure, understood (after s/MTA/MUA/) but what has port 25  
>> got to do with it?
> 
> back to my point about getting everything over 1 port.  If we had  
> that, then blocking 25 wouldn't have affected me.

But my point is that blocking port 25 shouldn't be affecting you  
anyway.

Submission runs on port 587, has done for years.

>> What they did do was carefully market it - Outlook was a very nice  
>> client, and it came free with Office, and only really worked  
>> tolerably with Exchange - where it worked really quite well. So  
>> they managed to leverage from Windows to Office, and from Office  
>> to Exchange.
> 
> Actually last time I compared prices of versions of Office, the  
> Outlook component accounted for like $500 NZ.
> 
> 
Yes, indeed - now they charge for it. But originally, the Office  
suite covered everything.


> It's also possibly the worst IMAP implementation out there.  But  
> they don't _want_ you to use IMAP.   They want you to buy Exchange.
> 
> 
Right, exactly my point.

>> What we need to do is identify the core problems to be solved,  
>> instead of finding solutions and trying to figure out how to use  
>> them.
> 
> * SPAM

... an infrastructure problem, mostly.

> * UDNs

I'm not familiar with this acronym. Nor is Wikipedia or Google, I'm  
afraid.

> * configuration issues

Right, and discovery (and decent implementations using it) solves 99%  
of this without any changes to the core protocols.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[e-mail] - xmpp:[e-mail]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade