MBOX-Line: From imantc at gmail.com  Tue Mar 10 04:14:27 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: <80feadb5-24d0-4be9-a6d9-7885f422ad07@flaska.net>
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>
	<80feadb5-24d0-4be9-a6d9-7885f422ad07@flaska.net>
Message-ID: <CAP1qinbD3DAV0XMFCP3Y=C3Hpi8xWf50A8W7qZ5jDr0=Qa+jxQ@mail.gmail.com>

Ok it appears I am not the only one considering current protocol slow.
I read this a while ago so I do not claim to be a discoverer of this
solution.

This is what D. J. Bernstein apparently wrote:


> The bottleneck in mailing list delivery today is SMTP latency. It typically takes more than ten seconds to transfer a message to another Internet host through SMTP. My mail transfer protocol, QMTP, is much faster, but how can qmail tell whether a remote host supports it? Answer: encode the information into the remote host's MX record. A future version of qmail-remote will support this. My target is 100 million remote deliveries per day on a 16MB machine.

http://cr.yp.to/qmail/future.html


> The Quick Mail Transfer Protocol (QMTP) is a replacement for the
   Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP). QMTP eliminates any need for
   end-of-line scanning between hosts with the same end-of-line
   convention. It features automatic pipelining and chunking, 8-bit
   transmission, prior declaration of the message size, and efficient
   batching. It is designed to be very easy to implement.


http://cr.yp.to/proto/qmtp.txt

