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

[Mark Crispin <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Dan White wrote:
> I don't think the disconnected state really matters. The email could just
> sit in a local queue until it's reconnected to the network, at which point
> it could be send directly to the recipient's lmtp server (which makes
> better sense than direct imap, now that I think about it).

What if the network you are on requires you to use their servers, and
enforces that requirement through various evil means? Their policy may
allow external traffic going in, even from a remote IMAP server, but not
out. They even put themselves as a MITM on SSL/TLS (not that anyone pays
attention to cert validation messages anyway).

Outgoing email security: it's not just for totalitarian dictatorships any
more.

> Are the younger folks coming up today going to use email if the spam
> problem isn't solved? I doubt it. SMS and Facebook seem to suit most folks
> under age X (where X will continue to increase linearly over time).

I doubt that they will use email in any case. There is simply no
compelling reason for them to do so.

> imap, smtp, and even exchange are pretty much doomed to role of legacy
> enterprise application if that continues.

I agree with this statement other than the word "legacy". Email originated
as an enterprise application and was designed as to be an enterprise
application. To date, nothing has filled that niche.

Attempts to create FB-style applications for the enterprise have not done
well. One problem is that enterprises are reluctant to turn internal data
over to "the cloud". Those that have done so (primarily academia) are in
the process of learning some hard lessons.

> I don't really even think there needs to be a change to the basic imap/lmtp
> specifications to support my grandios plan for eradicating spam (although
> I'm far from the first to have such a light bulb go off).

This is a definite "well, duh!" statement. You are correct; eliminating
spam is not a correct motivation.

> As soon as the
> appropriate sasl mechanisms are in place to support some federated
> authentication (think authentication against Facebook), then all that's
> left is to improve ACL support in servers and clients. Simple matter...

"Small matter of programming".

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.