53 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
53 lines
2.3 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From imantc at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 22:55:30 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: <C6695A01-E9CB-436D-8E28-55503224CAEC@getboxer.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>
|
|
<0C18524D-28EC-4DF9-A888-678E7DD4E56A@orthanc.ca>
|
|
<CAP1qinZT9xkSAJ1QoaPK_S6V7PLw59i6J4MpyU3Sn7TMq0ZiTg@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
<C6695A01-E9CB-436D-8E28-55503224CAEC@getboxer.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <CAP1qinZucoU_5SPgKQB0cAu6iCRjhAzMwz7e38kgaKNuSzJ9wQ@mail.gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
> Please go ahead.
|
|
|
|
.. i.e., write an RFC up? are there no more qualified takers? I could
|
|
write up a page to start the discussion - if anyone else were
|
|
interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
> chat messages are delivered faster than email most of the time because the protocols were designed for real-time delivery, not because the protocols are more efficient or easier to implement.
|
|
|
|
Is this possible that if we eliminate all activities but those
|
|
essential to byte delivery to the right place, email servers would do
|
|
more in less time and message recipients would enjoy faster, more
|
|
robust communication experience?
|
|
|
|
a bad example: a compliant SMTP server sends all messages encoded
|
|
entirely as quoted-printable and shortens line length to 40 chars. I
|
|
am pretty certain that this would slow things down. In other words, it
|
|
is possible to comply with the protocol yet require recipient server
|
|
to do something that could be avoided.
|
|
|
|
a better example:
|
|
performance web servers are known to run faster when serving static
|
|
content vs dynamic content (page generation per-request). Arguably,
|
|
reducing or eliminating dynamic content processing of email messages
|
|
by SMTP servers (current protocol) in favour of static message
|
|
processing (no-frills byte delivery), performance SMTP servers would
|
|
serve more concurrent requests.
|
|
|
|
It is possible that SMTP server performance aligns with web server performance.
|
|
|
|
why not?
|
|
|