81 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
81 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
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".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|