Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mar 18, 2004, at 3:46 PM, Jeff Rafter wrote: > > it is a misnomer. What we really have is HTTP automation scripts > masquerading as subscription services. If that's all, then why not just > insert a middle-man that can be repeatedly pinged and let the bank > push the > data to the middle-man? Oh yeah. That's how POP works. That's what we > are > trying to get away from. > I *hope* we're trying to get away from the limitations of the currently deployed version of SMTP, not the architectural pattern behind email. Like you say, if my bank (and everyone else who wants to get my attention) notifies an intermediary, and I periodically check that intermediary to see if anyone is trying to contact me, that take a whole lot less overall bandwidth than periodically checking everybody who might want to get in touch with me. I'm totally open as to whether the world needs a new protocol, a fixup of SMTP, or a pub-sub friendly HTTP extension (or lightweight, limited HTTP servers everywhere, a la KnowNow???). I guess I'd bet that a fixup of SMTP to prevent spoofing along with a zero tolerance policy toward spam on the part of ISPs (c.f http://bofhcam.org/co-larters/images/tracing-spammers-s.gif ) would make the email infrastructure suitable for this, but I don't claim to know ...
|
