> I assume that fact that the document has expired is merely a sign that it
> hasn't quite yet been resubmitted rather than that interest had flagged.
IMO there should be tons of people in need for something like that.
Basically everyone in a corporate firewall / http proxy environment who
would still like to use a reasonable MUA instead of webmail. But I guess
these people have never been asked and that very practical issue is not
known in the academic world.
Of course it will still require some MUAs to pick this up and support it.
But I cannot see why it shouldn't be possible to build support for this
into Mozilla Thunderbird for example.
Of course if's kind of a chicken and egg problem. The server service
doesn't make sense if you don't have clients that support the protocol and
you will not see too much client development unless there are servers
available and at least some popular email providers jump on the train.
But the proposed standard we discuss here would at least be a basis for an
open implementation versus any proprietary approaches that would tie the
email provider and the MUA together.
> And since suitable IMAP servers can be used as
> submission tools, it's not clear that the SMTP side is as important.
Could you help me out here, please?
Are you saying that IMAP has extensions in place / under development that
would allow me to *send* an email through IMAP rather than an SMTP server?
Wouldn't that obsolete an SMTP server as as Exim sooner or later?
Regards,
Torsten
> On 8/10/06 1:57 AM, "torsten@???" <torsten@???> wrote:
>
>> Are there any plans to support this:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lemonade/draft-maes-lemonade-http-binding-04.txt
>>
>> Would anyone object to supporting the SMTP HTTP binding described in
>> there?
>
> Interesting stuff. There might be interest (in this chair) when the
> proposal is further along. (But by then, the occupant of this chair could
> well be retired.)
>
> As Kjetil says, it seems premature now.
>
> I assume that fact that the document has expired is merely a sign that it
> hasn't quite yet been resubmitted rather than that interest had flagged.
>
> It seems also as if the IMAP "side" is more important (and more developed)
> than the SMTP side. And since suitable IMAP servers can be used as
> submission tools, it's not clear that the SMTP side is as important.
>
> --John
>
>
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim
> details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
