Subject: Non Delivery Report
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:31:36 GMT

Your Message

    To:  Huw Charles
       postmaster
    Subject:  Re: Mail collection

Was not delivered for the following reasons:

    Delivery failed to MS:postmaster.
    Reason: 1 (transfer impossible)
    diagnostic:  0 (OR name (Email address) unrecognized).
    MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:MSX1:EMERALD.

Original message body follows...

POP received a message that does not appear to be for this site:

PAA01746 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 20 May 1998 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spot.cs.utk.edu (SPOT.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.92.189]) by
mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA01742 for <[email-masked]>;
Wed, 20 May 1998 15:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (George Pajari)
cc: [email-masked] (Keith Moore), [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Mail collection
reply-to: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:45:29 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]
Status: U

> According to Keith Moore:
> > If on the other hand, we can do some careful tweaking to POP to let
> > it support confirmation of transfer and relaying of envelope information, 

> > and if ISPs offer the tweaked version of POP rather than what we have
> > now, (which are admittedly big IFs) then we can keep mail reliability 
from
> > degrading.
>
> Obviously I'm missing something here but it would seem to me that the
> effort of persuading ISPs to offer tweaked POP (and to get MUA software
> developers to support tweaked POP, etc. down the food chain) would seem
> isomorphic to the problem of getting them all to use
> "SMTP+TURN+authentication"

maybe, maybe not.  It depends on whether "supporting tweaked POP"
is seen as adding significant overhead.  It also depends on whether
the ISP thinks it can make more money by refusing to support tweaked
POP, and offering an SMTP+TURN service.

> And if the two problems are equally difficult, isn't pushing
> "SMTP+TURN+authentication" better for all?

The question is whether the two are equally difficult.

> Of course, we might have to rename "SMTP+TURN+authentication" POP4
> (POPng anyone?) in order to fool the masses into adopting it. It seems the
> only difference between selling POP+tweaks vs. SMTP+TURN+etc. is the name,
> n'est-ce-pas?

it's probably easier to tweak POP to transfer mail reliably,
than to tweak SMTP to allow it to read messages.

Keith

p.s. since discussion of POP extensions probably doesn't belong on
this list, I suggest that further discussion of these issues be
held on [email-masked]

 Received: (from Administrator@localhost) by Blue_Server.equisys.com
(8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA00584 for postmaster; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:10:43 GMT
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 00:10:43 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Apparently-To: postmaster

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:31:24 GMT
To: [email-masked]
Subject:   Non Delivery Report
Sender: [email-masked]

Your Message

    To:  Huw Charles
       postmaster
    Subject:  Re: Mail collection

Was not delivered for the following reasons:

    Delivery failed to MS:postmaster.
    Reason: 1 (transfer impossible)
    diagnostic:  0 (OR name (Email address) unrecognized).
    MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:MSX1:EMERALD.

Original message body follows...

POP received a message that does not appear to be for this site:

PAA01746 for ietf-fax-bks; Wed, 20 May 1998 15:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spot.cs.utk.edu (SPOT.CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.92.189]) by
mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA01742 for <[email-masked]>;
Wed, 20 May 1998 15:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked] (George Pajari)
cc: [email-masked] (Keith Moore), [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Mail collection
reply-to: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:45:29 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]

> According to Keith Moore:
> > If on the other hand, we can do some careful tweaking to POP to let
> > it support confirmation of transfer and relaying of envelope information, 

> > and if ISPs offer the tweaked version of POP rather than what we have
> > now, (which are admittedly big IFs) then we can keep mail reliability 
from
> > degrading.
>
> Obviously I'm missing something here but it would seem to me that the
> effort of persuading ISPs to offer tweaked POP (and to get MUA software
> developers to support tweaked POP, etc. down the food chain) would seem
> isomorphic to the problem of getting them all to use
> "SMTP+TURN+authentication"

maybe, maybe not.  It depends on whether "supporting tweaked POP"
is seen as adding significant overhead.  It also depends on whether
the ISP thinks it can make more money by refusing to support tweaked
POP, and offering an SMTP+TURN service.

> And if the two problems are equally difficult, isn't pushing
> "SMTP+TURN+authentication" better for all?

The question is whether the two are equally difficult.

> Of course, we might have to rename "SMTP+TURN+authentication" POP4
> (POPng anyone?) in order to fool the masses into adopting it. It seems the
> only difference between selling POP+tweaks vs. SMTP+TURN+etc. is the name,
> n'est-ce-pas?

it's probably easier to tweak POP to transfer mail reliably,
than to tweak SMTP to allow it to read messages.

Keith

p.s. since discussion of POP extensions probably doesn't belong on
this list, I suggest that further discussion of these issues be
held on [email-masked]

 Received: (from Administrator@localhost) by Blue_Server.equisys.com
(8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA00613 for postmaster; Thu, 21 May 1998 00:10:30 GMT
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 00:10:30 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Apparently-To: postmaster