RFC 224

Comments on Mailbox Protocol 📬✨

Okay bestie, first the title block 🎀

• Network Working Group, Request for Comments #224, NIC #7623
• Author: Alex McKenzie, BBN
• Date: 14 September 1971
• Category: D.7
• Updates: none
• Obsoletes: none
• Reference: RFC #215, #221

Okay so, heads up 😭 the Terminal IMP can't directly implement the currently-proposed mailbox protocol, and here's why:

• a) It's completely incapable of storing incoming messages for later printing or display 💀
• b) It's not expected to be able to perform as the "server" portion of any connection 🙈
• c) It can't provide programs for processing a variety of input streams. It currently supports the TELNET protocol and is expected to support at least one mode of Data Transfer Protocol in the future. It's not likely to support the File Transfer Protocol. And when using the Data Transfer Protocol, it won't perform any transformations on the data stream (e.g., interpretation of line printer form-control "characters," translation from one character set to another, etc.). It'll be up to the "other end" of the connection to set up and decode messages based on the terminal type 💅

Even though these limitations stop Terminal IMPs from joining the mailbox protocol, that shouldn't be considered an objection to implementing it, provided that Terminal IMP installations are guaranteed the right to "rent" mailboxes at some larger Host site [the NIC is probably a good candidate] 🦋. With that setup, a message for a Terminal IMP user gets shipped to the rented mailbox's site according to protocol and stored there. The Terminal IMP user can then periodically log in to that site (under TELNET protocol) and examine the mailbox. Since the examination happens over a TELNET connection, the Host containing the mailbox will automatically do the necessary transformation of the data before sending it to the Terminal IMP. Main character energy from that Host, honestly 👑

Page break here: the original's page header reads "RFC #224, Page 2."

A technically unattractive alternative 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 ]