---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -----------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1988  18:33 EST
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
From: Rob Austein <[log in to unmask]>
To: "June Genis" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: revising RFC822: heresy or possibility?
In-Reply-To: Msg of 29 Jan 1988  19:53-EST from "June Genis"
        <[log in to unmask]>
 
This is a follow-up on Frank Wancho's reply.
 
RFC821 is the description of SMTP, a second-generation mail protocol;
SMTP was designed with the shortcomings of a previous generation of
mail protocols in mind.  RFC822 (sic) traces its ancestory back to the
earliest days of ARPANET electronic mail standards, via a series of
revisions (RFCs 822, 733, 724, 680, and 561, for the curious).
RFC822, by itself, is still a first-generation protocol, albeit one
with provisions for encapsulation in a second-generation protocol
(SMTP).
 
Many BITNET sites have been using a modified version of SMTP called
BSMTP (Batch Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) for several years with
great success.  The big stumbling block has been that not everybody on
the BITNET implements BSMTP.  Sometime in the last year or so, BSMTP
was formally adopted as the official BITNET mail protocol.
Unfortunately, the BITNET being the loose confederation that it is,
there are STILL sites that don't use BSMTP, whether from ignorance,
intransigence, or inability due to lack of vendor support.
 
So the reason you are seeing these problems is that the BITNET
community has not completely implemented the protocols that have
already been designed and mandated to handle the problems.  With no
slight intended, the last thing the BITNET needs at this point is a
change to the mail protocols, particularly if the experience with
BSMTP is any guide to how such changes will be implemented.
 
If you have some energy to invest in making BITNET mail work better,
you would be better off using it to track down non-BSMTP sites and do
what you can to help them to support BSMTP.
 
I don't know how to post to LSTSRV-L, but if somebody wants to repost
this message there it's ok with me.
 
Please, no flames from people who haven't read both RFC821 and RFC822.
Corrections to factual errors solicited.
 
--Rob