Re: Message Routing Philosophy

[James Craig Burley <craig@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>On 1 Feb 2004, James Craig Burley wrote:
>
>> You might not be aware of this, but the model you want to get *away*
>> from is the one used by TCP/IP to transmit packets from host to host.
>It is true that underlying layer works this way, but most TCP based 
>services on top of that layer do not.
> 
>> Put another way, let's say you created a hypothetical email system
>> (call it dmail, for "direct mail") that provided for no
>> store-and-forward mechanism at all -- just direct connection from
>> originating client to receiving client, which is the "simplest" model
>> along the lines you're proposing
>We alrady have this kind of mail system. Its called INSTANT MESSAGING and 
>we have IETF standards for this system as well as multiple systems of 
>their own design all operating on the net and quite popular. Taking a 
>close look at some of the designs for XMPP protocol is good idea when 
>trying to design replacement for SMTP, I'm not certain we actually want
>to design something that parallels that, as in such case it would be 
>better to simply extend XMPP

I don't know much about IM, aside from that it's popular and such.

(Keep in mind I was proposing a *hypothetical* design, to illustrate
the problems with someone else's requirements.)

There were people on the im2000 list who were talking about XMPP being
a good starting-point.  Offhand I'd say it's definitely worth
investigating.

-- 
James Craig Burley
Software Craftsperson
<http://www.jcb-sc.com>
--Fix qmail's qmail-smtpd so it doesn't crash on a big header line:--
		   <http://www.qmail.org/netqmail/>