RFC 224 (rfc224) - Page 2 of 2

Comments on Mailbox Protocol

Alternative Format: Original Text Document
< Previous
RFC #224
Page 2

site (under TELNET protocol) and examine the contents of the
mailbox; since the "examination" would be carried out over a
TELNET connection the Host containing the mailbox would _automatically_
perform the necessary transformation of the data before transmitting
it to the Terminal IMP.

     A technically unattractive alternative to this scheme would
be to _require_ each Terminal IMP site to have a printer dedicated
to the mailbox function.  If the mail were then transferred in
TELNET format, we could probably provide a socket connected to
the dedicated printer for receipt of mail.  Obviously, if this
scheme were chosen, a Terminal IMP could accept mail from only
one sender at a time, and the transmission rate would be limited
to the speed of the printer.  Furthermore, a single central
mailbox printer is likely to provide poor service to Terminal
IMPs with widely scattered terminals (e.g., dial-in terminals
distributed over an area with a 10-mile radius).

     We feel that, in addition to other arguments, it would be
more cost-effective to provide storage for rented mailboxes at
one site than to provide a _special_ mailbox printer at each
Terminal IMP site.




AMcK:jm






    [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
    [ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the   ]
    [ direction of Alex McKenzie.                   12/96   ]
< Previous