[Asrg] is SMTP still really store-and-forward ?

[Tony Hansen]

I was talking with someone in the past year or so who had been traveling
in southeast Asia. They experienced email on a totally different level:
it was dependent on a router being brought in to the area by a shared
traveling router. When the router was nearby, email flowed smoothly. But
until the router came back around on its weekly journey (carried on an
elephant, no less), the email had to be stored up before its final
delivery. Email definitely required delay-tolerant store and forward
processing.

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> 
> David Nicol wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 9:06 AM, John Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>>> Also, SMTP is store-and-forward and [...] multiple hops.
>>
>> It was designed that way, for UUCP bang-paths, but in practice for a
> 
> ...
> The fact that the most common scenario is a direct transfer between two
> huge servers is misleading.  Much of the recent discussions about
> anti-abuse have been distorted by the failure to appreciate the real and
> extensive diversity of email transfer scenarios we still rely on.