MBOX-Line: From imantc at gmail.com  Mon Mar  9 17:15:12 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: <B79CBCA4E66D446690A5A91A7A88BA48@gmail.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>
Message-ID: <CAP1qinaEv5ZOC0rpXWdHhE=phLW5=6iWkiseb715-hZ6b85A4A@mail.gmail.com>

> text protocol is neglectable in term of CPU usage ..., compare to let's say indexing of emails for search.

well indexing is another topic. business email servers may or may not
index email. of course, there is virus scanning, spam filtering - all
this consumes resources.

all I am saying: current protocols are wasteful from several points of
view and can be simplified.

if anything, simpler protocols would lead to
- fewer production issues,
- shorter development time (for email server developers),
- more email server implementations, (choice is good)
- better protocol compliance (simpler protocol makes it easier to comply with).
- more robust mail delivery (less confusion over protocol)

