🚀 go-pugleaf

I have to agree with Andy Maas' assessment of POP and his comments
concerning the recent posting by Billy Brackenridge.

I can understand that POP may not have been a smashing success some
time ago.  But perhaps this was due to inadequacies in the implementation.

The value in POP lies in the fact that it is a network protocol that is
independant of an underlying file structure.  In other words, POP
clients and servers can be implemented on a variety of architectures
and (if true to the protocol) can communicate with one another
irregardless of the platform.

Some people have criticized POP because they are unhappy with the Rand
POP server implementation.  Since Rand mh 6.6 does not completely meet
our needs, we are looking at developing our own POP server, more
tightly coupled with existing BSD 4.3 features (e.g., use password file
for authentication, access mail spool instead of separate spool area,
etc.)  Because this is a protocol-based approach to mail, we know we
can continue using the Stanford MacMH program with our server, should
we develop one.

Furthermore, as MacTCP and TCPort become more widespread, I expect we
will see alternate POP client implementations.  Again, for those not
completely satisfied with MacMH, alternative client interfaces can be
developed based on POP that will communicate with the POP server(s).

The point is that you really have to look at the advantages of a
protocol-based approach to mail services independent from existing implementations.

Austin Shelton
Data Communication and Network Services
University of California at Berkeley