Dan Melomedman | 2 Jan 2003 01:23
Favicon

Re: betteremail.com

David Phillips wrote:
> I came across this today.  The concept is similar to IM2000:
> 
> http://www.betteremail.com/better2.htm
> 
> -- 
> David Phillips <david <at> acz.org>
> http://david.acz.org/
> 

Also see this: http://www.emsd.org/

dsr | 2 Jan 2003 02:17
Picon

Re: betteremail.com

On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 07:23:03PM -0500, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> 
> Also see this: http://www.emsd.org/

This is an interesting one. I've read the white paper, but not anything
else, so these criticisms are based on that and are probably incomplete
and may even be erroneous:

- EMSD uses a new UDP-based protocol to support reliable transmission of
  packets. The benefits of this over TCP are not clear to me, especially
  in light of the fact that TCP is well-understood and widespread by
  many applications; using ESRO exposes a mail system to bugs in a new
  underlying layer, which strikes me as suboptimal. The author claims
  that a reduction from 9 to 3 transmissions makes this an acceptable
  tradeoff.  (SMTP with pipelining vs EMSD) However, if you compare QMTP
  vs EMSD, the number is now 5 vs 3. That doesn't sound worthwhile to
  me. Also, UDP-based protocols are generally a hassle for firewalls.

- EMSD uses RPC. I hate debugging RPC based protocols, I hate trying to
  verify them, and I hate pushing them through firewalls.

- EMSD uses ASN.1. The vulnerabilities of most ASN.1 parsers are
  well-known; I am willing to bet USD5 that another multi-parser flaw is
  found in the next year. ASN.1 goes against my feelings about protocols
  on the Net: they should be human-readable, human-writable,
  human-debuggable.

Basically, if I needed a short-message delivery protocol with
guarantees, I would look at QMTP, BEEP, RSS or a custom TCP-based
protocol; if I didn't need guarantees of any sort, I would use a custom
(Continue reading)

Petre Rodan | 15 Jan 2003 09:44

please be advised


Please be advised!

The file (part0002:Phantom.exe) attached to mail (with subject:Re: Vote seniors 
+masters - don't miss it!)                                                      
sent by im2000-return-1201-petre.rodan=gecadsoftware.com <at> list.cr.yp.to to       
+petre.rodan <at> gecadsoftware.com                                                  
is infected with virus: Win32/Naith.C <at> mm.

Do NOT open the attachment.

--

-- 
Petre Rodan
Senior Network Engineer - GeCAD The Software Company
Please visit http://www.ravantivirus.com
Worry less! RAV is watching.


Gmane