- From: Rob Lanphier <robla@real.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:44:14 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Paul Prescod wrote: > "Roy T. Fielding" wrote: > > > >... > > > > It wouldn't be less useful. The point is that it would gain nothing > > from doing so. It is a store and forward messaging system -- the application > > consists of delivering the message, that's all. > > If you were tasked with inventing a protocol for fetching mail from a > remote server, would you choose to make it a specialization of HTTP or > not? I'm not asking whether there is sufficient cost/benefit to replace > POP, IMAP, etc. Probably there is not. I'm asking how you decide when to > invent a new application protocol or just use HTTP. My 2 cents: no. See RFC 3205 for the justification and for a detailed discussion as to guidelines for using HTTP as a substrate: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3205.txt Email constitutes a substantially different service than traditional HTTP. Rob
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 00:41:44 UTC