MBOX-Line: From imantc at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 16:44:00 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: <7782A916-12BB-488C-BD57-697FDB5D47E2@orthanc.ca>
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>
Message-ID: <CAP1qinY-d_fpmfwJ=04GUZhAnkZpPxzwMGfVdn8--4z=tJT5_w@mail.gmail.com>

> Is your measurement data and methodology for this available online anywhere?

this is a subjective assessment. Email servers are way too busy for
what they deliver. I believe it is for these reasons:

Parsing takes time. So does transfer decoding and charset conversion,
unwrapping text, dot stuffing.

It can be reduced to:
no case conversion for commands; no parsing for commands even: a
simple switch case statement suffice;

no parsing for CRLF, empty line or DOT CRLF; actually, no content
parsing at all is necessary for transmission;

no transfer encoding / decoding (it is transferred as binary);

no charset decoding: a single encoding is applied to the entire (text
part of) the message.


Simply from pragmatic point of view: if these tasks need not to be
done, server is less busy and can process higher throughput.

