Re: POP3 protocol question

Michael D'Errico <> Mon, 10 October 1994 23:16 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05454; 10 Oct 94 19:16 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05450; 10 Oct 94 19:16 EDT
Received: from PO5.ANDREW.CMU.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29749; 10 Oct 94 19:16 EDT
Received: (from postman@localhost) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) id TAA09084; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 19:12:33 -0400
Received: via switchmail for; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 19:12:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from via qmail ID </afs/>; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 19:10:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.9/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA18109 for <>; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 19:10:27 -0400
Received: from rome ( []) by with ESMTP id AAA19815; Mon, 10 Oct 1994 16:10:17 -0700
To: POP3 IETF Mailing List <>
cc: Jerome Chan <>
Subject: Re: POP3 protocol question
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 16:10:15 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Michael D'Errico <>
Message-ID: <19941010231017.AAA19815@rome>

> >RFC-821 (SMTP) allows one to _send_ mail.  POP3 has no reason to
> >duplicate this functionality.
> That's debatable.  I think overall I agree with Chris, but a significant
> number of people do not.

It appears to me that the people who want this functionality in POP3
are not thinking of it as a way to make POP3 any better, but as a way
to either "prevent" forged mail, or get around the configuration problem
of having two servers (SMTP and POP3) to deal with (yes it's hard to get
users to set up their clients correctly).

However, the ability to send mail does not belong in POP3.  No debate
necessary.  POP3 servers are such different creatures from SMTP servers
that I'm surprised anybody who understands both would argue for it.

In my opinion, the implementor(s) that support XTND XMIT, and the system
administrators who "turn off" SMTP in favor of this "feature" are doing
a great disservice to the end users.

Michael D'Errico