Re: EDI over http?

["Matthew James Gering" <mgering@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Am I right in saying that http is a good, evolved standard anyway and
> that most firewalls will allow message transport via port 80?  This
> being the case, I really don't see why companies should go to the
> expense of creating customised SMTP servers in support of real time
> mail.

Most firewalls do not allow traffic on any ports through (a filter only
firewall is pathetically unsecure). Most firewalls will proxy or tunnel
traffic through, and that is one direction only -- that is the connection
must be initiated from the inside. The only thing that is generally
bi-directional through a firewall is SMTP -- and that is still a
store-forward proxy.

If your requirements for "real-time" EDI are that they /end/ EDI processors
must be able to establish a direct encrypted session with each other, then
I can tell you already that that is hostile to a firewalled environment. If
you are going to make that requirement, then yes, there is no reason to use
customize SMTP rather than use HTTP. I question that requirement for
real-time EDI.


	Matt