Re: We do have a marketing problem ...

["Kit Christopher J. Lueder" <kit@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that there is a perception problem that e-mail is unreliable.
That is why EDIINT was developed in the first place.

However... with FTP you know immediately at the end of the session
whether the FTP transfer succeeded or failed, so you can act on the
failure now or archive the document that was successfully sent. With
e-mail, even using the EDIINT secure receipt, you don't know untill
later whether it succeeded or failed (including the use of a timeout if
you don't receive a response at all). So EDIINT takes more effort to
implement, since you have to keep track of it and save the original
files, and not know whether they are "checked off" until later.

There is also the risk that your EDIINT transmission succeeded, but the
receipt that was sent back in response failed, in which case you resend
your original transmission after a timeout of waiting for the receipt.
This would result in the recipient receiving duplicate copies of the
transaction, which some VANs or users would consider to be a problem.
This generally does not happen with FTP, since you can see if the file
resides on the destination system at the end of the transfer.

> It is incorrect to state that SMTP is not real-time whereas HTTP is.
> Compared with traditional VANs, EDIINT offers:
>   - Real-time messaging

I don't see why e-mail is "real-time" (unless the only alternative is
"batch"). You send and wait for an asynchronous reply. Maybe we need a
definition of "real-time". You don't have a session or a virtual
connection with e-mail. Can't you have a session with http (maybe that
is what cookies are used for), in which case http is real-time?

Kit.

Carl Hage wrote:
> 
> Date sent:              Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:18:17 -0500 (EST)
> From:                   Gunther Schadow <gunther@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> > ...The hardest argument to
> > break is the dull feeling that "e-mail is unreliable."
> 
> I think you are right. In fact email is more reliable than http (email
> has error-retry whereas www broken/inaccessable connections
> simply fail).
> 
> Perhaps the problem is using the term "email". There is a big
> difference between uucp email gatewayed into a proprietary LAN
> email system and EDIINT. Why not use the term "EDIINT
> Messaging", which has the properties:
>   - real time message transfer (if recipient has a dedicated
> connection)
>   - guaranteed delivery confirmed by receipts
>   - legal non-repudiation
>   - ability to use redundant network providers and processing sites
>    for ultra-high reliability
>   - compatible with dedicated (real-time) or dial-up net connections
>   - compatible with standard Internet software
> 
> The irony is that traditional EDI using vans _is_ email, but
> proprietary email.
> 
> Compared with HTTPS (SSL Secure-HTTP), EDIINT offers:
>   - Legal nonrepudiation
>   - Automated recovery on delivery failures
>   - Support for backup sites/networks
> 
> It is incorrect to state that SMTP is not real-time whereas HTTP is.
> 
> Compared with traditional VANs, EDIINT offers:
>   - Real-time messaging
>   - Interoperability across all network providers
>   - Increased security
>   - Increased reliability
>   - Lower network cost
> 
> The main problem with VANs (other than cost) is potential poor
> reliability across VANs. I lost my reference (US government
> electronic filing) where cross-VAN deliveries took several days.
> Simply changing VANs creates major problems since it requires
> manual intervention with all TPs.
> 
> Also, a VAN is a single point of failure. Two internet-compatible
> network providers (ISPs) with independent networks can be
> obtained for less than the cost of one VAN. Changes in ISPs or
> routing across alternate providers is transparent. (The DNS system
> replaces proprietary VAN email addresses.)
> 
> Security is improved since data can be exchanged encrypted and
> cannot be intercepted or altered by VANs/ISPs/wiretaps. Non-
> repudiation is provided by digital signatures, not the just the
> testimony of a third-party VAN which can offer logging service.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carl Hage                                              C. Hage Associates
> <mailto:carl@xxxxxxxxx> Voice/Fax: 1-408-244-8410      1180 Reed Ave #51
> <http://www.chage.com/chage/>                          Sunnyvale, CA 94086

-- 
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder       
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Page: 703-331-7656
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W658           FAX:  703-883-3383
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: kit@xxxxxxxxx
God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose
-Emerson, Essays: Intellect