MBOX-Line: From ladar at lavabitllc.com  Wed Mar 11 07:36:41 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Ladar Levison <ladar@lavabitllc.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: <25599.1425793832@parc.com>
References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com>
	<CAKHUCzzirU0YEQ02n1zEypZCvUJ+0dU0CuPxT=ZnowTk_R6jOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54FB22EB.7090707@lavabitllc.com> <8701.1425748438@parc.com>
	<54FB3E1F.3020909@lavabitllc.com> <25599.1425793832@parc.com>
Message-ID: <550052F9.5030406@lavabitllc.com>



On 3/7/2015 11:50 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> CCN is a peer-to-peer broadcast content-caching protocol, so there's no
> "RPC call" from a client to a specific server which then sends a
> response.  The difference is somewhat like point-to-point versus
> packet-switched CDN; instead of encrypting the channel the messages flow
> on, the messages themselves are encrypted and attached to a unique
> handle, and then just "handed out to passing strangers" for them to copy
> and pass on to others (this is exactly what's happening in the
> implementation of an SSL-encrypted TCP connection, of course).  At some
> point the receiver issues a call for that particular handle (which can
> be different for each message), and anyone who has a copy sends it on.
>
> But what I'm doing is an MTA-to-MTA protocol; what you're looking at is
> an MUA-MTA protocol, like IMAP.  On the other hand, in my design the MUA
> *is* the MTA, so perhaps there's no difference.

Sounds an awful lot like how bitmessage works.

L~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20150311/62ddbccc/attachment.html>
