MBOX-Line: From imantc at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 18:24:36 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Imants Cekusins <imantc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:54 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] If Crispin were creating IMAP today how would
 it be different?
In-Reply-To: <1425947142.1718611.238135065.31CDBC0E@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com> <54FBF289.3010202@psaux.com>
	<7164.1425831184@parc.com>
	<1425907661.1215497.237833469.1EDA571D@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<6506.1425915329@parc.com>
	<B03452330F6149E180E449A493F28C2B@gmail.com>
	<CAP1qinZdV1LW6XiWfqfk2A+TC6HsYsAWtT-KSffTNdOFqG_Tjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<7782A916-12BB-488C-BD57-697FDB5D47E2@orthanc.ca>
	<CAP1qinY-d_fpmfwJ=04GUZhAnkZpPxzwMGfVdn8--4z=tJT5_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B79CBCA4E66D446690A5A91A7A88BA48@gmail.com>
	<CAP1qinaEv5ZOC0rpXWdHhE=phLW5=6iWkiseb715-hZ6b85A4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<1425947142.1718611.238135065.31CDBC0E@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <CAP1qinaH8PfOoO26OFbddk=77fLmTtOJxLjUz0R2UMzMUxGGzQ@mail.gmail.com>

> we're talking about SMTP more than IMAP here.

SMTP first of all but both really. IMAP is more complex than SMTP. it
is very slow too - maybe for different reasons.

generally, it can takes less time to send, receive and read email.


> Text vs not text is not so much of a big issue there though,

bytes are sent across the wire. any transformations we perform are an
extra cost, come at a price. do we really absolutely need all of these
transformations?

btw even today we can ship utf8 or utf16 to a modern browser in binary
format - and parse the bytes in browser to display to the user.
obviously, single encoding across the message helps in this case.

think about this: original blob message- as sent - are shipped
directly to browser - no server parsing or indeed any transformations
on the server. ok, maybe filter messages somehow.

