quietly....

Lamar Owen lowen at pari.edu
Thu Feb 3 17:21:48 CST 2011


On Thursday, February 03, 2011 05:47:44 pm Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> ETRN (RFC1985) FTW.

POP (RFC918), and the current version, POP3 (RFC1081) both predate the ETRN RFC: by 12 and 8 years, respectively.  By 1996, POP3 was so thoroughly entrenched that ETRN really didn't have a chance to replace POP3 in normal use; of course, there was the point you mention below, too, that makes it less than useful for most e-mail tasks.  The ETRN portion, however, introduces the idea of a distinct server and a distinct client that the server holds state for.

> (Of course, the operational problem with ETRN is that it in fact *does*
> implement "every workstation gets its mail directly through SMTP", when the
> actual need is "every *mail recipient*".

That has its advantages for certain uses.  And its distinct disadvantages, as you correctly note, for most 'normal' uses.





More information about the NANOG mailing list