MBOX-Line: From David.Harris at pmail.gen.nz  Tue Mar 10 14:22:40 2015
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: David Harris <David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz>
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: <F22E882E-0476-477E-9CB7-63121106217C@psaux.com>
References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com>,
	<CAP1qinbr2hBTS1d_Sdeeqz9m37GXZgKzphEAx0J+SQYmbEr5zw@mail.gmail.com>,
	<F22E882E-0476-477E-9CB7-63121106217C@psaux.com>
Message-ID: <54FF60A0.5138.18BCFD72@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>

I absolutely hate writing "me too" messages, and abhor top posting, but here I am 
doing both... Just wanted to throw my 2c in and say that Tim is right on the money 
with this post - agree with every sentiment, especially the rebuttal of the utterly 
bizarre contention that it's easier to write a mail server than to set one up.

The simple reality of things as they stand is that IMAP, SMTP and even (god forbid 
- I can hear Mark spinning angrily as I say this) POP are so entrenched that 
replacing them would be a herculean task that quite likely would not offer rewards 
commensurate with its pain and misery.

Don't get me wrong - there are things I absolutely *loathe* about IMAP (implied part 
numbering in bodystructures being the biggest one), but it's what we've got: I for 
one have negative enthusiasm for spending another ten years in bitter arguments 
over some slightly "improved" replacement.

Cheers!

-- David --


On 10 Mar 2015 at 9:53, Tim Showalter wrote:

> > On Mar 10, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Imants Cekusins <imantc@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > so, to summarize majority opinion:
> > 
> > IMAP & SMTP in their current state:
> > - are efficient
> > - lead to efficient hardware utilization
> > - are simple enough for implementation
> > 
> > changes to the protocols are not justified
> > 
> > current selection of email server software offers enough choice.
> > there is no real need for more alternatives
> 
> No, this is a poor summary.
> 
> IMAP and SMTP are constants of the ecosystem. They are problematic but
> a replacement is far more difficult.
> 
> The trade offs between binary and text protocols are complex, but
> unlikely to be the bottleneck for an I/O bound protocol. Parsing isn't
> what makes a mail server expensive.
> 
> Writing the parser is perhaps the easiest part of writing an email
> server, although writing an IMAP parser is quite tedious. Binary helps
> a little here but not enough to justify starting over.
> 
> Adding a new server to the set of IMAP, SMTP, and POP3 adds great
> expense since for the foreseeable future, we won't be able to stop
> using the old protocols.
> 
> Setting up Postfix and Dovecote is easier than writing email systems
> from scratch.
> 
> Tim

------------------ David Harris -+- Pegasus Mail ----------------------
Box 5451, Dunedin, New Zealand | e-mail: David.Harris@pmail.gen.nz
           Phone: +64 3 453-6880 | Fax: +64 3 453-6612

Real newspaper headlines from US Papers:
   "Two soviet ships collide - one dies".



