[136631] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Feb 3 17:55:17 2011
To: Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:25:14 EST."
<201102031725.14733.lowen@pari.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:47:44 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1296773264_6170P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:25:14 EST, Lamar Owen said:
> If it were peer-to-peer at that connection there would be no POP3 or IMAP
> stacks needed to go get the mail, rather, every workstation would receive its
> mail directly through SMTP.
ETRN (RFC1985) FTW.
Just because you don't use it, or don't realize it's there, doesn't mean the
protocol doesn't already support it.
(Of course, the operational problem with ETRN is that it in fact *does*
implement "every workstation gets its mail directly through SMTP", when the
actual need is "every *mail recipient*". POP included that whole concept of
USER/PASS so you could snarf down the mail queued for one recipient, not one
workstation.)
--==_Exmh_1296773264_6170P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNSzCQcC3lWbTT17ARAgXAAKDLLHKNgZ9Uupo8VQzhYvSOHTwpPwCfaw5K
lgZkp4T16wDA88g40yuLW38=
=5koV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1296773264_6170P--
