[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Any Comments on the Draft?
From: Randall Gellens <Randy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 7:31 PM
>At 11:29 AM -0800 11/17/97, Jeff Stephenson wrote:
>>1) I'd prefer to see the whole solution provided on the SMTP port
>>than on some other port. Admittedly if someone is _only_ going to
>>provide on-demand email service a separate port for a specialized
>>service might make sense, but in reality anyone who's providing
>>on-demand service is also going to be providing regular SMTP service.
>>Just making this part of SMTP seems to make more sense to me.
>The problem with this is that it requires that the provider run a
>standard SMTP server which is also capable of handling TURN and
>becoming a client. This is architectually difficult in many server
>implementations, where the client and server portions are in separate
>modules, and switching between them can be ugly.
While this may be easier for some implementations of the server on the
provider side, it means that either
1) the server on the client side has to be modified to know to make one
connection to submit mail and another (to a different port) to receive mail,
2) the admin on the client side (who is probably responsible for a lot more
than just mail) has to know enough to configure her server to do the above
Both of these solutions get more complicated (to the client admin) if there
are several servers on the client side, only one of which connects to the
>Also, using a separate port allows the provider to block access based
>on IP addeess (using a firewall or wrapper or server configuration).
>This may be desirable in a a number of situations, and can help protect
>the client's mail by not allowing just anyone with an IP connection to
>bang on the server.
If you've got decent authentication I don't see this as being a real issue.