Replacing SMTP?

dousette asks: "In reading over one of the RFC's governing the SMTP protocol, and other RFC's as well, it's interesting to note that you see some big names and big companies from time to time. With all the loopholes in the current SMTP specification, is it possible for the Slashdot collective to come up with another one? Would it stand a chance in making it into a standard, or do they just listen to Cisco, AT&T, etc? I realize that a lot of people have a lot of ideas how things should be done (and they haven't been shy about posting them to Slashdot), but has anyone tried to write the RFC for a replacement protocol? As a side note (where I won't be shy about posting how things should be done), if there were a replacement trusted protocol, one could have mail received via that protocol bypass spam filtering, id checking, or whatever checks might be in place (saving processor cycles, etc). The regular checks could still be done on other mail received via the 'older' SMTP protocol. If more and more ISP's make use of this, SMTP could be gradually phased out... or if you are one for a sudden cut-over, just cut to the new one at the same time as the IPv6 upgrade!"

Comments

Re:Costs

[680x0]

That's similar to what happens with ESMTP (yes, there already is a "new improved SMTP"). If the client understands ESMTP, it sends a new command to begin the conversation ("EHLO" instead of the older "HELO"). If the server is old, SMTP-only, it sends an error message, and the client tries again with plain old SMTP. If the server does do ESMTP, it sends a reply, along with the list of ESMTP goodies it understands. Some of the goodies are sending msg size ahead of time (so the server can reject the message due to size limitations before the whole message gets transferred), delivery status notification, and so on. None of the current "capabilities" really help filter out spam, but if you come up with a new feature, you can add it as an ESMTP capability, and whenever both client and server support it, it will be used.

Check out RF2821.

Re:... at the same time as the IPv6 upgrade! ???

[darrylo]

After all, it's now past the death of typewriters, and we're still using the typewriter keyboard from nearly two centuries ago. And we use a ridiculous rail gauge, because the standard was set centuries ago.

Don't laugh. The following might be apocryphal, but it's still interesting .... I don't know where it comes from, though:

The US standard railroad gauge (width between the two rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?

Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.

Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons which used that wheel spacing.

Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe (and England) were built by Imperial Rome for their legions. The roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots first formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for (or by) Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot.

Specifications and bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses. Thus, we have the answer to the original question.

When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.

The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, the major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass!