Re: FYI: I-D ACTION:draft-brunner-epp-smtp-00.txt

[Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>]

[I clearly have a problem with English. Let me say the same thing in a
different way.]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 01:48:55PM -0400,
 Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote 
 a message of 24 lines which said:

> > I believe it would be better to call it "EPP transport mapping for
> > E-mail". You do not seem to use any SMTP feature in the draft, thus
> > allowing EPP over UUCP as well.
> 
> I didn't intend for this memo to specify transport directly over UUCP,

I never asked that. I suggested to *rename* the draft (not changing
its actual content) from "EPP over SMTP" to "EPP over e-mail".

Rationale: you do not use SMTP at all and your mapping will work as
well over any e-mail transport, UUCP, SMTP, X400, etc.

> Thanks for reading the draft. If you want to toss me some tidbits on
> modern uucp use near you, I'd appreciate it. I'm always curious.

I know a computer security company where the Internet email server is
not connected physically to the LAN. Mail is spooled by UUCP, put on a
floppy and travel to the internal mail server one meter (but without
any network link) away.

Of course, I would not do EPP that way, but my idea was we should not
limit to SMTP when the draft makes no use of any SMTP feature.