MBOX-Line: From lyndon at orthanc.ca Mon Mar 9 18:55:45 2015 To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu From: Lyndon Nerenberg 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: References: <54FAEB94.4070508@lavabitllc.com> <54FBF289.3010202@psaux.com> <7164.1425831184@parc.com> <1425907661.1215497.237833469.1EDA571D@webmail.messagingengine.com> <6506.1425915329@parc.com> <7782A916-12BB-488C-BD57-697FDB5D47E2@orthanc.ca> Message-ID: <0C18524D-28EC-4DF9-A888-678E7DD4E56A@orthanc.ca> On Mar 9, 2015, at 4:44 PM, Imants Cekusins wrote: > Simply from pragmatic point of view: if these tasks need not to be > done, server is less busy and can process higher throughput. The micro-optimization fallacy. Before you dive in to this too far, spend a bit of time reading the papers Rob Pike and Brian Kernighan have published over the years. Also, consider the latency of a network connection vs. the speed of the CPUs processing the data travelling to/from them. Is the CPU you are using to parse your IMAP/SMTP stream so slow that it cannot do a 'c = tolower(getchar())' in real time? Is it slower than your network link? Even my ancient pre-Android phone can keep up with that. Let alone the group of mail servers I run that manage to push through several hundred messages a second. --lyndon -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 817 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: