Re: [exim] Exim 5.x

Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
> On 19 May 2011, at 13:35, W B Hacker wrote:
>
>>>
>>> part allows integration with an IMAP server, a message is
>>> submitted with a an IMAP url to allow forward without download,
>>> etc.
>>
>> ??
>>
>> IF the content is already located at a URI, all that is needed is
>> the URI. We all get such - mostly as advertising.
>
> No, the point is not to put a URI in a message, but to put it in the
> SMTP conversation. The URI refers to some content to be found on an
> IMAP server. The SMTP server fetches that content, and appends it to
> the message. The point is to avoid having your mobile device upload a
> large attachment that's already available on the server.
>

But that protects only the *senders* handheld from overload.

The recipient - who may ALSO be device, time, b/w, or all of the above
constrained, gets the whole shebang. Like it or not.

Think also multiple recipients, which is why I said advertising.

MLM's and other broadcast/expansion critters already have toolsets to
'build' messages from templates.

But most often folks on the receiving end don't WANT more - they want
less, so the most beloved of MLM are tjose configured to *strip*
attachments, rather than add them, let aloe inline them.

Whereas with the 'bare' URI conveyance, BOTH parties benefit.

>> Looking just at the ages of RFC's from six to seventeen years old -
>> it seems what was found useful enough to gain traction, did so ...
>> and has been actioned.
>>
>> The rest?
>>
>> Seems the world has been in no hurry to drink that kool-aide, er
>> scratch that
>
> Well 8bitmime is implemented almost everywhere.

That one 'has traction', yes. And we should see what still needs doing...

Such as MTA being able to detect lack of ability at the far-end, and
reformat, or perhaps wrap - the whole of an often massive message.

Preferably on the fly and in-session rather than back-off, remember, and
retry - so as to convey it in a manner the other MTA CAN accept.

No mean feat in some instances, but the available horsepower is far more
likely today than yesteryear.

And it is being done SOMEHOW already, so perhaps is not so difficult.

> The thing is, I can't
> turn it on without installing a non-Exim smart host to downgrade
> messages that I send to other Exim sites! I'd have to do this with
> all my outbound 8bit mail. I guess I could use $smtp_command in the
> MAIL ACL to work out which mail to send, and perhaps route that mail
> through our Exchange server. (sorry!)
>
> Sites with significant numbers of mobile users ought to be
> considering whether their MSA servers support LEMONADE features that
> are supported by mobile clients.
>
> The rest, we'd want to see how mobile providers are getting on. Here
> are some findings from Apple (not huge, but a serious player in the
> mobile market), MSN and AOL
>
> Apple's ME.COM (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server)
> provides this
>
> 250-8BITMIME * 250-PIPELINING 250-CHUNKING * 250-DSN *
> 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES * 250-EXPN 250-HELP 250-XADR 250-XSTA
> 250-XCIR 250-XGEN 250-XLOOP EBAC943BF078DE96864E96CFA8E61582
> 250-STARTTLS 250-AUTH PLAIN LOGIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN 250-ETRN
> 250-NO-SOLICITING 250 SIZE 0
>
> Now, I don't know whether Apple's clients implement any of that extra
> LEMONADE goodness, but they certainly don't when they connect to Exim
> servers.

Aye - the very point of advertising - and adapting to what is advertised...

>
> Microsoft's live.com service advertises: 250-TURN 250-SIZE 41943040
> 250-ETRN 250-PIPELINING 250-DSN * 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES *
> 250-8bitmime * 250-BINARYMIME * 250-CHUNKING * 250-VRFY 250-TLS
> 250-STARTTLS 250 OK
>
> AOL: 250-PIPELINING 250-SIZE 36700160 250-ETRN 250-STARTTLS 250-AUTH
> XAOL-UAS-MB PLAIN LOGIN 250-AUTH=XAOL-UAS-MB PLAIN LOGIN
> 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES * 250-8BITMIME * 250 DSN *
>
> Yahoo and GMail aren't so advanced. But, if there are clients out
> there that can benefit from these technologies, then Exim should
> support them.
>
> Exchange 2010 SP1 supports: 250-SIZE 52428800 250-PIPELINING 250-DSN
> * 250-ENHANCEDSTATUSCODES * 250-STARTTLS 250-AUTH GSSAPI NTLM
> 250-8BITMIME * 250-BINARYMIME * 250 CHUNKING *
>
> Bizarrely, Exchange 2010 supports lots of LEMONADE features, even
> though their IMAP implementation only supports a single extension.
>

Uh, 'Bizarrely, Exchange 2010....' Timeout. Language tidbit.

For any non-native English speakers still awake, this is called a
'redundancy'.

;-)

Bill