|
|
 |
Cybertelecom
Federal Internet Law & Policy
An Educational Project |
|
EMail |
Electronic Mail Address
(5) ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS- The term `electronic mail address' means a destination, commonly expressed as a string of characters, consisting of a unique user name or mailbox (commonly referred to as the `local part') and a reference to an Internet domain (commonly referred to as the `domain part'), whether or not displayed, to which an electronic mail message can be sent or delivered.
CAN SPAM Act Sec. 3(5)
Electronic Mail Message
(6) ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE- The term `electronic mail message' means a message sent to a unique electronic mail address.
CAN SPAM Act Sec. 3(6)
EMail
After a user composes a message in an e-mail client program, a program called a mail transfer agent ("MTA") formats 2 that message and sends it to another program that "packetizes" it and sends the packets out to the Internet. Computers on the network then pass the packets from one to another; each computer along the route stores the packets in memory, retrieves the addresses of their final destinations, and then determines where to send them next. At various points the packets are reassembled to form the original e-mail message, copied, and then repacketized for the next leg of the journey. See J. Klensin, RFC 2821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (Apr. 2001); Jonathan B. Postel, RFC 821: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (Aug. 1982), ("RFC 821"). Sometimes messages cannot be transferred immediately and must be saved for later delivery. Even when delivery is immediate, intermediate computers often retain backup copies, which they delete later. This method of transmission is commonly called "store and forward" delivery.
Once all the packets reach the recipient's mail server, they are reassembled to form the e-mail message. A mail delivery agent ("MDA") accepts the message from the MTA, determines which user should receive the message, and performs the actual delivery
by placing the message in that user's mailbox. One popular MDA is "procmail," which is controlled by short programs or scripts called "recipe files." These recipe files can be used in various ways. For example, a procmail recipe can instruct the MDA to deposit mail addressed to one address into another user's mailbox (e.g., to send mail addressed to "help" to the tech support department), to reject mail from certain addresses, or to make copies of certain messages.
Once the MDA has deposited a message into the recipient's mailbox, the recipient simply needs to use an e-mail client program to retrieve and read the message. While the journey from sender 3 to recipient may seem rather involved, it usually takes just a few seconds, with each intermediate step taking well under a second. See, e.g., W. Houser et al., RFC 1865: EDI Meets the Internet (Jan. 1996) ("For a modest amount of data with a dedicated connection, a message transmission would occur in a matter of seconds . . . .").
-- United States v. Councilman, ___ F3d ___ slip at 4-5 (1st Cir. Aug 11, 2005) (rehearing en banc)
602P Email Tax Hoax
A hoax that was not terribly serious but nevertheless resulted in a flurry of Congressional action was the infamous 602P hoax. According to a widely circulated email in 1999, Senator Schnell (German for "Fast") had recently introduced the legislative proposal 602P that would impose a 5 cent tax upon every email sent (or assess access charges on modems, aka "The Modem Tax"), with the proceeds going to the US Post Office. It was reported that the March 6 edition of Washingtonian Magazine included an editorial that supported the email tax. Panic spread and Congress was inundated by concerned citizens.
This hoax was an obvious deception. There was no Sen. Schnell. There is no congressional legislation numbering format that includes a "P"; legislation in the House would be H.R. 602 and legislation in the Senate would be S. 602. There was no March 6 edition of Washingtonian; it is a monthly periodical that does not publish issues on specific days. There was no editorial, there was no such legislation, and a Virginia law firm that was the hoax reported was leading the lobbying campaign against the bill did not exist.
Nevertheless, Washingtonian Magazine, the US Post Office, and a multitude of Congressional offices were so inundated by inquiries that they were forced to post responses disclaiming the existence of the legislation - and if it did exist, disclaiming any support for such legislation. In a perfect example of life inside the Beltway, Rep. Upton introduced legislation in response to the non-existence 602P, in order to prohibit the federal government from doing what it had no intention of doing; the measure passed the House.
602P Email Tax Links
- Congressman Tony Schnell's Proposal to Tax E-mail (194 documents were found on house.gov with "602P" in them, most probably statement that the Hoax is false).
- The Washingtonian: EMail Tax is a Hoax
USPS
E-COM
Time to use the Way-Back Machine  . The time is 1977 . The country is in a tailspin. Saturday Night Live is singing carols about killing Gary Gilmore for Christmas . President Carter takes the Oval Office, and pardons Vietnam War draft evaders . The Clash releases their debut album. And the USPS is scared.
The USPS has learned about this thing called electronic mail and electronic transactions. It occurs to the USPS that if everyone were to use these electronic thingies, First Class mail would get wiped out and so would all that revenue. After some careful strategic planning, the USPS launched an attack on email with a classic pincer movement: on the left flank, the USPS initiated its own email service known as E-COM ; on the rank flank, the USPS considered banning all private email service.
E-COM was a simple concept. The USPS would set up a network where a message would originate electronically. It would then be sent to one of a handful of participating postal offices that had terminals, where it would be printed out. The hard copy of the message would then be delivered to its destination - essentially in the same manner and with the same speed as first class mail. USPS launched this service in 1981.
Before E-COM could get off the ground, however, it was mired in controversy. The US Postal Commission, the Department of Justice, private companies, and even the FCC, objected. The first objection was that it was against government policy for a government agency to compete with the private sector. Private commercial email services were nascent and promising, and did not think much of a government monopoly using its government bankrole to pay for a competing email service. The FCC made a particularly interesting objection. The FCC said, "we have jurisdiction over all wireline and wireless services. That jurisdiction has been interpreted broadly. And there is no dispute that the transmission of a message over a communications network is communications, under the Communications Act, and under our jurisdiction." "Not only that," the FCC was heard to say, "but its common carriage." Using an actual quote, the FCC stated:
With respect to the relevant judicial decisions defining the nature of common carriage, we note that none of the parties to this proceeding appears to dispute that ECOM service would constitute a common carrier offering if it were to be provided by an entity other than the Postal Service. [Oh really?!?!?!] We also conclude independently that ECOM is a quasi-public offering of a for-profit service which affords the public an opportunity to transmit messages of its own design and choosing. Based on those judicially defined criteria, we find that, in offering ECOM, the Postal Service is engaging in a common carrier activity.
In re Request for declaratory ruling and investigation by Graphnet Systems, Inc., concerning the proposed E-COM service, FCC Docket No. 79-6 (Sept 4, 1979).
In other words, before E-COM could get launched, the FCC said, "if you are going to do this, then you are under our jurisdiction, and you are going to have to file a tariff for the offering of your common carriage service" (do you hear that?!? The FCC said that email , whether from the USPS or privately offered, is a form of common carriage - they don't say that anymore).
Well, the USPS would not accept "no" for an answer, tinkered with its network in order to weasel out of FCC jurisdiction, and launched E-COM in 1981. A message was priced at 26¢ - and for each email message, the USPS was said to lose around $5. They had apparently estimated that the service would be a raging success; it was not and, with the low message volume, the cost per message was rather high. And by the way, if you used the service you had to send at minimum 200 messages. The service was one directional; if you got an error message, you would receive it in the mail two days later. When the E-COM messages were printed out, it would take two days more to be delivered. And it cost the same as First Class mail.
For some reason, E-COM was a failure (one Senator called it a turkey). Three years after service was initiated, USPS terminated the service and tried to sell it off.
ECOM Notes
- In Brief: "The history of USPS' involvement in e-commerce related products and
services began with a brief foray in 1982 when it introduced its Electronic
Computer-Originated Mail (E-COM) service.6 However, E-COM generated
much controversy and scrutiny from PRC, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and Congress. In a report by the House Committee on
Government Operations, the oversight committee concluded that the rates
charged did not cover the cost for this initiative.7 USPS discontinued ECOM
service in September 1985." [GAO-00-188 p 7]
- USPS Business Plan
- Messages would originate electronically, terminate at one of only a few post offices that could receive the messages, be printed out, and then delivered.
- USPS believed that email was going to devaste First Class mail volume by the year 2000. "The OTA analysis indicates that, regardless
of what role USPS plays in Generation II electronic
mail, reductions in USPS-delivered mail
volume due to diversion to Generation III
EMS and EFT could reach significant levels
by 2000." - [Implications of Email p 8]
- USPS wanted to use email to make up for this loss of First Class revenue. "Regardless of the underlying mainstream
growth, the effect of Generation II EMS volume
is to "cushion" or offset some of the
decline in conventional mail, assuming USPS
delivers the Generation II hardcopy output.
Put differently, if Generation II volume
reached significant levels, USPS-delivered
mail volume (conventional plus Generation II)
might be maintained at or above a given level
for an additional 5 years or so." - [Implications of Email p 5]
- Different reports indicate that E-COM was heavily subsidized, and that this was a violation of USPS's rules. Reports indicate that the price of an E-COM message was 26 cents, and that USPS lost $5.25 on each E-COM letter. Delivery times remained as slow as first class mail. [Aide p 8]
- Description
- "The USPS put in a system with a mainframe computer and "high-speed" printers in major regional post offices. Mailers could submit mail jobs as IBM remote job entry jobs over dedicated SNA links. The interface was so one-way that error messages came back as paper mail a day or two later. E-COM was for first class mail, sent in bulk. You had to send at least 200 letters to a single regional post office in a day [Fed Reg
50 FR 28144-01], so it was useless for general business mail. It cost as much as first class mail, so it was useless for advertising. Mailers couldn't have a return envelope included, so it was useless for bills." Animats Comment on Snail Mail as Email, Slashdot
- Controversy:
- "USPS
believes its participation in EMS is authorized
by the Postal Reorganization Act mandate to
use new facilities and equipment to improve
the convenience, efficiency, and cost effectiveness
of mail service. Various mailer organizations,
consumer groups, and postal labor
unions see a USPS role in EMS as essential
to USPS long-term viability and to maintaining,
or at least minimizing any reductions in,
mail services that are vital to a large part of
the U.S. population. They point to the critical
role of USPS in providing a universal, lowcost,
nondiscriminatory nationwide communication
service. Various private telecommunication
and computer firms view USPS involvement
in EMS as the entry of a Federal
agency into competition with private industry
(possibly subject to the Communications Act
as well as the Postal Act), raising difficult
questions of ratesetting and potential crosssubsidy." - [Implications of Email p 3]
- "Over the last 3 years, the role of USPS in
EMS has been in dispute before various regulatory
agencies, the courts, and Congress.
USPS initiated E-COM service in January
1982 after the USPS Board of Governors approved
the Postal Rate Commission's (PRC)
1980 recommended decision, with the exception
of PRC's "experimental" designation (of
E-COM as an experimental rather than a permanent
service) which was successfully appealed
by the Governors to the courts. However,
several private firms and the current administration
believe that E-COM as presently implemented differs significantly in other
ways from the concept originally recommended
by PRC. A 1981 inquiry opened by
PRC to review what form of E-COM USPS
should be offering was suspended after its
legality was challenged by USPS.
Comments filed before PRC jointly by the
Departments of Commerce and Justice and a
court challenge to E-COM filed by Justice indicate
that the current administration is not
supportive of E-COM as presently operating,
or possibly of any USPS role in EMS that involves
telecommunication, data processing, or
printing. This in part reflects continuing concern
that E-COM places an independent Government
agency (USPS) in competition-perhaps
unfairly and/or illegally-with private
firms. Some of these firms believe that the demand
for EMS can be met by private offerings,
and that the USPS role should be restricted
to the delivery of hardcopy output
from electronic message systems. Others are
concerned that in the future USPS may expand
its EMS role from printing, enveloping,
and physical delivery-as in E-COM-to include
telecommunication and perhaps electronic
delivery as well." - [Implications of Email p 17]
- Competition: "Furthermore, regulatory
decisions by the Federal Communications
Commission over the last few years,
coupled with congressional actions to rewrite
the Communications Act of 1934, are clearing
the way for increased competition in the electronic
message market." - [Implications of Email p 16]
- "In its original Opinion and
Recommended Decision, PRC supported the
use of EMS technology by USPS although it
differed with USPS in the application of that
technology. More specifically, the PRC recommended
that USPS provide only the printing,
enveloping, and hardcopy delivery functions
and not the telecommunication function. The PRC Recommended Decision was based
substantially on its finding that "the general
obligation imposed on regulatory agencies to
consider and promote competitive policies applies
to this Commission."12 The PRC decision
was also based on the clearly procompetitive
policy of FCC and the fact that the FCC asserted
jurisdiction over the original USPS
E-COM proposal, primarily on the grounds
that it included telecommunication transmission
functions to be provided by a telecommunication
firm (Western Union), which was
subject to FCC jurisdiction under the Communications
Act of 1934.13 PRC concluded that
competition would be best served if USPS did
not provide telecommunications. This also permitted
PRC to avoid both a possible regulatory
impasse with FCC and any direct concession
of FCC jurisdiction over postal services
per se. USPS subsequently appealed the FCC ruling
which asserted jurisdiction over E-COM.
However, the appeal was dismissed and the
FCC ruling vacated as moot by the court in
view of the PRC Recommended Decision and
USPS cancellation of the Western Union contract.*
Thus, the court did not rule on the
merits, and the legal jurisdiction of FCC over
USPS involvement in EMS remains unclear. However, regulatory developments since the
FCC ruling on E-COM suggest that so-called
"enhanced services" such as electronic mail
may not be subject to active FCC regulation
under title II of the Communications Act. In
other words, as long as USPS does not own
and operate its own telecommunication transmission
system and uses telecommunication
services of firms who are regulated as providers
of so-called "basic services, " the USPS
EMS offerings would not necessarily be regulated
by FCC. The applicable FCC decision,
known as Computer II, is still under
regulatory reconsideration and judicial challenge . . . " - [Implications of Email p 76]
- In re Request for declaratory ruling and investigation by Graphnet Systems, Inc., concerning the proposed E-COM service, FCC Docket No. 79-6 (Sept 4, 1979).
- 14. Thus, in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Congress has established a scheme of regulation designed to assure the delivery of communication services to the people of the United States under terms and conditions which would allow the people to take full advantage of the existence of those services. In order to assure the reasonableness of those terms and conditions, Congress in Title II of the Act vested in this Commission jurisdiction over common carriers engaged in interstate and foreign communications. It is evident, moreover, that this Commission has broad and flexible regulatory powers regarding interstate and foreign communications services and facilities and the terms and conditions under which such services and facilities are offered to the public. Philadelphia Television Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 359 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1966).
- 15. In ascertaining whether ECOM constitutes an interstate communications service under the Communications Act, it is appropriate to begin with the Act's definition of 'communications,' which is the
. . . transmission [by wire or radio] of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds . . . including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.6
Moreover, interstate and foreign communications is defined as communications between states, and between states and a foreign point.7 Based on the legislative history of the Act, the Supreme Court has determined that our jurisdiction over communications services has been broadly defined by the 'very general terms' used in the Act, U.S. v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 168 (1968). See also California Water and Telephone Co., 64 FCC 2d 753 (1977).
- 16. It is undisputed that ECOM is designed to offer consumers a service whereby information can be transmitted from a point of origination to one or more points of termination by means of electronic communications facilities. We therefore conclude that ECOM will be a communications service, pursuant to the statutory definition in Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Act. We also believe that the 'including all instrumentalities' aspect of the statutory definitions ensures that, once an entity is regulated because it is engaged in transmission, its activities incidental to that transmission will also be subject to our regulatory authority. 8 Thus, we find that both the electronic transmission and physical delivery portions of ECOM incidental thereto constitute a communications service within the terms of Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Act.
- 17. Not only is the proposed service 'communications by wire or radio;' it is also a common carrier activity. As has often been noted, the statutory definition of common carrier is not helpful: "common carrier' or 'carrier' means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire . . .' 47 U.S.C. § 153(h). Our Rules shed little additional light on the issue: '. . . any person engaged in rendering communication service for hire to the public.' 47 C.F.R. § 21.1 Like our Rules and the language of the Act, legislative history is also less than illuminating: the term was not intended to include '. . . any person not a common carrier in the ordinary sense of the term.' Thus, whatever guidance we are to receive on the meaning of communications common carriage must come from judicial interpretations and comparisons of ECOM with existing communications common carrier services already regulated under the Act.
- 18. With respect to the relevant judicial decisions defining the nature of common carriage, 9 we note that none of the parties to this proceeding appears to dispute that ECOM service would constitute a common carrier offering if it were to be provided by an entity other than the Postal Service. We also conclude independently that ECOM is a quasi-public offering of a for-profit service which affords the public an opportunity to transmit messages of its own design and choosing. Based on those judicially defined criteria, we find that, in offering ECOM, the Postal Service is engaging in a common carrier activity. 10
- Interconnection: "The final USPS provisions for interconnection
between telecommunication providers and
E-COM facilities at the 25 serving post offices
(SPOs) appear to be substantially responsive
to comments received from private firms. 'g
USPS is providing four different interconnection
arrangements for those firms desiring
dedicated access to E-COM facilities, and two
different arrangements for dial-up access at
each SPO. The interconnection arrangements
are summarized in appendix D. The dedicated
access interconnection arrangements appear
to meet the technical needs of most firms that
provided comments to USPS. In addition,
USPS has stated that it "will consider providing
additional arrangements as necessary
and feasible" and "will consider requests to
accommodate user-provided interface circuit
boards."20 The dial-up access arrangements
will permit dial-up access via any public telephone
network." - [Implications of Email p 78]
- Statistics
- "in the first half-year of its existence
(January through June 1982), about 660,000
E-COM messages were sent. During July
1982, E-COM averaged about 172,000 messages
weekly." - [Implications of Email p 4]
- Termination: E-COM was terminated in 1985. It had beed highly criticized by Congress, challenged by the FCC and the private sectors, and was a business failure. USPS announced its termination and that it was looking for a buyer. [Aide p 8]
Electronic "Mail"
The developers of email were apparently concerned about calling it "mail" and whether the USPS would demand a postage stamp for each message sent. Therefore they contacted the USPS just to be sure.
"We cautiously tried to find out who to ask. We didn't want to ask any low-level people who could only say "no." Finally an MIT professor met someone fairly high up in the Postal Service, who said forget it, don't worry. "
Email as Tariffed FCC Service
There was a time during the 1970s, before Computer II, when companies were filing tariffs with the FCC for their email services.
On the Matter of Monitoring Compliance with Conditions Underlying General Telephone and Electronics Corporation's Acquisition of Telenet. CC Docket No. 80-197 ORDER (Adopted: April 24, 1980; Released: May 30, 1980) at 78 FCC 2d 419
In the past, Telenet transmission has basically been limited to communications between computers and lower-speed terminals (75 to 1200 bits per second). In 1980, Telenet plans to add interface facilities for its major classes of terminals to take advantage of higher speeds of 2400 to 56,000 bits per second. This includes visual display terminals, inquiries and other transaction processing applications and batch terminals. In addition to expanding its network, Telenet is expanding services it offers. Telenet has filed a tariff to offer Telemail, which it describes as an electronic mail service. In an April 2 News Release, Telenet states that this service is designed to overcome many of the limitations that services such as telex, TWX, and facsimile have. Thus, according to the release, represents the first step of Telenet's expansion into the office automation marketplace. The company expects to expand Telemail into a high-speed, multi-media information distribution system, incorporating electronic data bases.
See also SICOM II order (59 FCC 2d 140) Finding Western Union 's "pseudo station service" (a primitive email) was a common carrier communications service. Pseudo Station Service provides for the diversion of messages for temporary storage at the computer center and their subsequent transmission to a station or stations on the customer's network.
Tymnet received authorization in 1976 from the FCC to provide computer networking and messaging services as a common carrier. Tymnshare Annual Report 1976 p 11.
United Telecom (aka Sprint) ran an X.25 service known as Uninet.
- 1890s: USPS declared it illegal to deliver paper messages through pneumatic tubes under city streets [Bovard]
- 1960s Email developed for time share computers (individuals could message each other on the same mainframe computer; but not over a network)
- 1971: Ray Tomlinson develops an email application for over the ARPANet, permitting individuals to send messages over the network and alert the recipient that a message had been received. Tomlinson chose the "@" sign for email addresses.
- 1972: RFC 354, Comments on the File Transfer Protocol , ¶ 21 (Aug 18, 1972) (adding Mail File "MLFL" and the MAIL command to FTP)
- 1973: 75% of traffic on ARPANet is email. [Akkad]
- 1977: DARPA initiative to transform various differing email formats into a single, standard specification. David Crocker, John Vittal, Kenneth Pogran, Austin Henderson, RFC 733, Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Message (Nov. 21, 1977) ("This standard specifies a syntax for text messages which are passed between computer users within the framework of "electronic mail"." RFC notes that this work was funded by DARPA.)
- 1977: USPS initiates exploration of email
- 1979: USPS attempts to ban private email service, but is thwarted by the FCC and the US Postal Commission. [Bovard]
- 1979: Meeting at BBN to discuss differences and incompatibilities between different ARPA email services. A record of the meeting is recounted in Jon Postel, RFC 808, Summary of Computer Mail Services Meeting Held at BBN on 10 January 1979 (March 1, 1982) A list of all of the differing email services was compiled by Prof David Farber and presented in Appendix A.
- 1979: " President Carter was supporting a USPS proposal to offer limited electronic message service where the messages would be transferred from one post office to another electronically, and then would be brought to the consumer ? s address by the mailman. This threat brought the research community together and they along with the US Justice Department and the FCC opposed any plans of government intervention in e-mail. They all successfully lobbied for E-mail to be left up to the free market." [Akkad]
- 1982: RFC 821, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (Aug. 1982)
- 1982: USPS Introduces E-COM (messages that originate as email, are printed out, and then delivered in hard copy form). [USPS] FCC asserts jurisdiction over E-COM as a telecommunications service.
- 1982: David Crocker, RFC 822, Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages (Aug. 13, 1982)
By 1977, the Arpanet employed several informal standards for the text messages (mail) sent among its host computers. It was felt necessary to codify these practices and provide for those features that seemed imminent. The result of that effort was Request for Comments (RFC) #733, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Network Text Message", by Crocker, Vittal, Pogran, and Henderson. The specification attempted to avoid major changes in existing software, while permitting several new features. This document revises the specifications in RFC #733 , in order to serve the needs of the larger and more complex ARPA Internet. Some of RFC #733 's features failed to gain adequate acceptance. In order to simplify the standard and the software that follows it, these features have been removed. A different addressing scheme is used, to handle the case of inter-network mail; and the concept of re-transmission has been introduced.
- 1985: After 3 years, USPS terminates E-COM service. [USPS]
- 1988: Vint Cerf arranges for a connection of MCI Mail to NSFNET on an experimental basis.
- 1989: Compuserve email connects to NSFNET
- 1993: AOL and Delphi interconnect their proprietary email systems to the Internet.
- 2001: RFC 2821, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (April 2001) (This document is a self-contained specification of the basic protocol for the Internet electronic mail transport.)
Government Activity
- US Postal Service: Postal Activities and Laws Related to Electronic Commerce, GAO-00-188
- In re Request for declaratory ruling and investigation by Graphnet Systems, Inc., concerning the proposed E-COM service, FCC Docket No. 79-6 (Sept 4, 1979).
- U.S. Postal Rate Commission, Opinion and Recommended lkbion on Ekxtronic Mail Classification Proposal docket No. MC78-3, Dec. 17, 1979, pp. 278 (with regard to E-COM, "PRC recommended
that USPS provide only the printing,
enveloping, and hardcopy delivery functions
and not the telecommunication function")
- Guidelines to telecommunications interconnection requirements for message input to the USPS E-COM system , ITS NTIA, April 1981
- Implications of Electronic Mail and Message Systems for the U.S. Postal Service , Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, August 1982
- OTA's analysis suggests that advances in technology and increased competition
in the communications marketplace will significantly affect USPS finances,
service levels, and labor force requirements over the next two decades. It further
suggests that modification or clarification of the USPS role in EMS can, in turn,
help determine how effectively USPS accommodates to these changes. Given the
difficulty of modifying institutions as large and complex as USPS and the laws
and regulations that govern USPS actions, it would seem prudent for Congress
and USPS to address these issues aggressively. Changes are taking place so fast
in the so-called "communications revolution" that by the time USPS actually experienced
significant reductions in conventional mail volume, most opportunities
for participation in EMS would have passed and it would be much more difficult
to adjust.
Standards
- J. Klensin, IETF RFC 2821, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (April 2001).
- J. Postel, IETF RFC 821, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (August 1982).
- S. Sluizer, J Postel, NWG RFC 772, Mail Transfer Protocol (Sept 1980)
- J Postel, RFC 706, On the Junk Mail Program (1975)
- J White, RFC 524, A Proposed Mail Protocol (June 1973)
- Michael Kudlick, RFC 469, Network Mail Meeting Summary (Mar. 1973) (agreeing to use the "@" sign proposed by Tomlinson)
- Abhay Bhushan, RFC 385 Comments on the File Transfer Protocol (adding the command MAIL to FTP)
- RW Watson, RFC 196, Mail Box Protocol (1971)
Papers
Books
- Douglas Aide, Monopoly Mail: Privatizing the US Postal Service
|
|
