emv@a.cc.umich.edu (Ed Vielmetti) (12/21/88)
Are there any newsgroups (other than this one of course) that would be appropriate for discussion of post office protocol (pop3, rfc1081, or earlier) ? I have decided that I'm not even going to consider quote-unquote 'commercial' mailers on local networks as solutions until I have some pop code here to run and test and some experience with it. Don't send mail, post. If there's enough interest in protocol design, server implementations, client implementations, spiffy user interfaces or what have you generated here I'm going to examine the usefulness of a new group proposal. If someone has pointers to a pop mailing list I'd like that too. --Ed
campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (12/21/88)
At the risk of starting a minor flame war (Go ahead, punk, make my day), I'm going to suggest that implementing POP would be a waste of time because the 1988 X.400 series of recommendation contains a protocol to implement a Message Store, which is exactly what POP provides. (I don't remember that actual recommendation number of the Message Store document, since my references are all at the office.) Why fiddle with random hacks when recognized international standards exist? -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146
amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) (12/21/88)
campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes:
[POP2 vs. X.400 Message Store]
Why fiddle with random hacks when recognized international standards exist?
No problem, just tell me a site from which I can anonymously FTP a working,
freely distributable implementation that runs over TCP/IP.
I'm sorry, you'll have to speak more loudly...
Oh, and since we have to talk to already existing mailers that speak
SMTP/RFC822, I'll need a protocol gateway that at least translates
X.400 to RFC822 (so's I can hand messages off to sendmail).
Hmm... lots of static on this connection.
"Exist" is a relative term sometimes... Trying POP now doesn't
preclude using X.400 once it's actually available to whoever wants it.
--
Amanda Walker ...!uunet!lts!amanda / lts!amanda@uunet.uu.net
InterCon, 11732 Bowman Green Drive, Reston, VA 22090
-- Phone: (703) 435-8170
UNIX: the only operating system that can be destroyed by mail.marc@apollo.COM (Marc Gibian) (12/22/88)
The paper "The Postman Always Rings Twice: Electronic
Mail in a Highly Distributed Environment" in the February
USENIX procedings describes an attempt to use the Post
Office Protocol. As a result of their work, they appear
to have given up on POP and are waiting for x.400.
--
Internet: marc@apollo.COM UUCP: {decvax,mit-erl,yale}!apollo!marc
NETel: Apollo: 508-256-6600 x7490
(Copyright 1988 by author. All rights reserved. Free redistribution allowed.)emv@a.cc.umich.edu (Ed Vielmetti) (12/22/88)
In article <746@lts.UUCP> amanda@lts.UUCP (Amanda Walker) writes: >campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: > [POP2 vs. X.400 Message Store] I was actually thinking of POP3, aka MH-POP.... > Why fiddle with random hacks when recognized international standards exist? > >No problem, just tell me a site from which I can anonymously FTP a working, >freely distributable implementation that runs over TCP/IP. I guess POP discussions belong in comp.mail.mh too. Where can I FTP a working, freely distributable version of POP3, server and/or client, that runs over TCP/IP, for MH-POP? For X.400 Message Store ?
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (12/22/88)
In article <578@redsox.UUCP> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >At the risk of starting a minor flame war (Go ahead, punk, make my day), >I'm going to suggest that implementing POP would be a waste of time because >the 1988 X.400 series of recommendation contains a protocol to implement >a Message Store, which is exactly what POP provides. (I don't remember >that actual recommendation number of the Message Store document, since >my references are all at the office.) > >Why fiddle with random hacks when recognized international standards exist? POP would seem to be a much smaller effort to implement than X.400. POP will layer into a TCP/IP network quite nicely, X.400 is a little harder. Personally I'm waiting for the 1992 X.400 to see which way the dust settles before I start implementing, and POP would be fun to play with in the meantime :-) -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
lyndon@auvax.uucp (Lyndon Nerenberg) (12/27/88)
In article <578@redsox.UUCP> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >At the risk of starting a minor flame war (Go ahead, punk, make my day), >I'm going to suggest that implementing POP would be a waste of time because >the 1988 X.400 series of recommendation contains a protocol to implement >a Message Store, which is exactly what POP provides. Commence fire! :-) I'm very interested in discussing POP implementations. Over the next couple of years, Athabasca University will need to implement a system that will allow us to store and forward mail to (potentially) over a thousand micro- computers of various makes and models. Can you show me ANY X.400 software that we could include in our student materials at a cost to the student of under $25 (Canadian) ??? Besides, how do we run X.400 over asynch dialup lines? POP is a fairly robust protocol that would provide this service. Most important, it's *free*, both to the University and the students. (FYI - Athabasca U used to be part of CDNnet, an X.400 network running over Datapac. We ended up dropping our membership due to the high X.25 charges incurred in running the X.400 protocols. Cost can become a major factor very quickly, especially when you're a broke university (I hope Don's not listening :-)) >Why fiddle with random hacks when recognized international standards exist? TCP/IP forever !! :-) Mind you, Athabasca gets wired for ISDN starting in January, and I'm not complaining *too* loudly ... -- Lyndon Nerenberg Computing Services Athabasca University {alberta, attvcr, ncc}!auvax!lyndon || lyndon@nexus.ca
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (12/27/88)
In article <423@aurora.auvax.uucp> lyndon@aurora.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >I'm very interested in discussing POP implementations. Over the next couple >of years, Athabasca University will need to implement a system that will >allow us to store and forward mail to (potentially) over a thousand micro- >computers of various makes and models. Can you show me ANY X.400 software >that we could include in our student materials at a cost to the student of >under $25 (Canadian) ??? Besides, how do we run X.400 over asynch dialup MMDF is(was?) supported by the EAN software. They may be loath to admit it and it's not very efficent. >(FYI - Athabasca U used to be part of CDNnet, an X.400 network running >over Datapac. We ended up dropping our membership due to the high X.25 >charges incurred in running the X.400 protocols. Cost can become a >major factor very quickly, especially when you're a broke university I agree with this. I find it very interesting that after spending huge amounts of money to develop a workable, usable, worldwide X.25 network the various regulatory authorities have contrived to price it out of the market. During the day Trailblazer dialup seems to be quite competitive and nightime its far better (in Canada Datapac rates are not time sensitive, you basically pay per kpac). And heaven forbid that you might want to cross the border. Multiply about three to get into the US for example. Contrast that with long distance where going across the border is *cheaper*. For example from BC it is cheaper to call *anywhere* in the continental US then anywhere in Canada (outside of BC). Also if you need high volumes, cross country leased lines are becoming very affordable. So it will be interesting to see if there will ever be a time when using ISO protocols and X.25 saves us any money. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
lyndon@auvax.uucp (Lyndon Nerenberg) (12/28/88)
In article <2070@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: >MMDF is(was?) supported by the EAN software. They may be loath to admit it >and it's not very efficent. Maybe you mean MMDF will interface with EAN in an easier fashion than other mailers (sendmail et al) by using seperate channels? We have the EAN software on a tape somewhere -- I'll see just what's there ... >During the day Trailblazer dialup seems to be quite competitive and nightime >its far better (in Canada Datapac rates are not time sensitive, you >basically pay per kpac). For general mail traffic, Datapac is still cheaper during the day due the the three minute minimum charge for LD. You can make your links on demand (call as soon as the traffic queues) during the day over Datapac due to the low setup/teardown charges. Things get real nice if you can send packets >= 1K. You *don't* want to use it for news! >Also if you need high volumes, cross country leased lines are becoming very >affordable. >So it will be interesting to see if there will ever be a time when using ISO >protocols and X.25 saves us any money. I'm still waiting to see what ISDN will do for us :-) -- Lyndon Nerenberg Computing Services Athabasca University {alberta, attvcr, ncc}!auvax!lyndon || lyndon@nexus.ca