🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct13.054709.22181@netcom.com> ptrubey@netcom.com (Phil Trubey) writes:
>Am I missing something here?  Why is it that I seem to be the only person
>who thinks that MIME based e-mail packages can take on the very profitable,
>yet proprietary mass market e-mail packages like Microsoft Mail (aka Network
>Courier), Lotus cc:Mail, Da Vinci E-Mail, etc?

MIME is just a content encoding. The mail packages you mention are all 
transport mechanisms as well. So you would have to run MIME over something,
like POP2/POP3/IMAP2/IMAP3/..., and these protocols are not stable enough
to be attractive to many commercial vendors, I suspect. IMAP2bis is pretty
new and even now they seem to be talking about replacing it with something
from Carnegie-Mellon. Of course, each of these protocols is IP-based, which
has its own problems in the PC/Mac environment, such as requirements for
packet/NDIS/ODI drivers (and IP/IPX multiplexers if necessary, etc. etc.),
and RARP/BOOTP servers etc. And isn't MacTCP a commercial product?

What might be interesting is a PC-based MUA talking P7 and using MIME as
a content-encoding.

In article <1992Oct13.113431.7685@infodev.cam.ac.uk> ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>MIME is just a content encoding. The mail packages you mention are all 
>transport mechanisms as well. So you would have to run MIME over something,
>like POP2/POP3/IMAP2/IMAP3/..., and these protocols are not stable enough
>to be attractive to many commercial vendors, I suspect. 

I don't buy this argument.  What do you mean by "not stable enough"..?  Do
you think that these vendors never change their protocols?  A lot of them
won't even bother maintaining backward compatibility when they do!  (They
have less need to do so since customers can usually upgrader their whole
site if they choose to upgrade).  Internet protocols are far more concerned
with interoperability and are generally "stable" for much longer stretches
of time than proprietary vendor protocols.
--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629

In article <1992Oct13.113431.7685@infodev.cam.ac.uk> ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.054709.22181@netcom.com> ptrubey@netcom.com (Phil Trubey) writes:
>>Am I missing something here?  Why is it that I seem to be the only person
>>who thinks that MIME based e-mail packages can take on the very profitable,
>>yet proprietary mass market e-mail packages like Microsoft Mail (aka Network
>>Courier), Lotus cc:Mail, Da Vinci E-Mail, etc?
>
>MIME is just a content encoding. The mail packages you mention are all 
>transport mechanisms as well. So you would have to run MIME over something,
>like POP2/POP3/IMAP2/IMAP3/..., and these protocols are not stable enough
>to be attractive to many commercial vendors, I suspect. IMAP2bis is pretty
>new and even now they seem to be talking about replacing it with something
>from Carnegie-Mellon. 

Yeah, I was thinking of using something like POP3 or IMAP - or both.

>Of course, each of these protocols is IP-based, which
>has its own problems in the PC/Mac environment, such as requirements for
>packet/NDIS/ODI drivers (and IP/IPX multiplexers if necessary, etc. etc.),
>and RARP/BOOTP servers etc. And isn't MacTCP a commercial product?

Yep, this is a problem.  One way you could get around it would be to use
POP3/IMAP over IPX, NetBios, ASDP - of course, you might lose something
in terms of interoperability.

Yes, MacTCP is commercial, but it is also licensable and that's what most
TCP/IP based applications do in the Mac world (license it).

>What might be interesting is a PC-based MUA talking P7 and using MIME as
>a content-encoding.

What is P7?
-- 

Phil Trubey                   | Internet: ptrubey@netcom.com
Systemhouse Inc.              | Voice:    415-327-8337
                              | Fax:      415-243-0471

ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
> to be attractive to many commercial vendors, I suspect. IMAP2bis is pretty
> new and even now they seem to be talking about replacing it with something
> from Carnegie-Mellon.

Um, no.  Carnegie Mellon is starting to do work with IMAP2bis and is
talking about augmenting it (not replacing it) with a Mail Management
protocol.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up

In article <Bw2E9L.9Kx@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.113431.7685@infodev.cam.ac.uk> ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>>like POP2/POP3/IMAP2/IMAP3/..., and these protocols are not stable enough
>
>I don't buy this argument.  What do you mean by "not stable enough"..?  Do
>you think that these vendors never change their protocols?  A lot of them
>won't even bother maintaining backward compatibility when they do!  (They
>have less need to do so since customers can usually upgrader their whole
>site if they choose to upgrade).  Internet protocols are far more concerned
>with interoperability and are generally "stable" for much longer stretches
>of time than proprietary vendor protocols.

But MS, Lotus or whoever will sell the client and server as a package.
The _whole point_ of POP and IMAP is that they provide interworking 
between different vendors' clients and servers; in particular the server
is usually public-domain (no fancy user-interface stuff). So if a vendor
wants to have control over the protocol, they would have to sell both
client and server.

Yes, Internet protocols are generally stable, but remote-mail-management
is an exception! Just look at the IMAP2 vs. IMAP3 controversy for example.
It does look as if IMAP2bis is settling down, but there are a number of
unanswered problems (authentication in the absence of Kerberos, quota 
management, manual and automatic forwarding, interface to the Directory)
and I get the feeling some people are waiting for CMU's Andrew II messaging
system to take a more coherent approach. (IMAP2's specialisation on the
'Retrieval' function is in line with Internet no-redundancy policy, but
has pitfalls in practice. To me, redundancy means having five competing
mail-retrieval protocols!)

In article <Ieqk6Fi00WBwRl1i8C@andrew.cmu.edu> John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>Um, no.  Carnegie Mellon is starting to do work with IMAP2bis and is
>talking about augmenting it (not replacing it) with a Mail Management
>protocol.

Augmenting in what sense? Multiplexing functions over port 143 (IMAP2) by
using an additional command set? The copy of "Andrew II Functional 
Requirements" you posted to imap-request says nothing about IMAP; could
you reveal some details about the new system will be implemented?
(We are downsizing from MVS; my interest is as a potential user, not as
a theorist!)