Re: gzip/deflate compression/encoding

Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.rfc822,gmane.ietf.usenet.format
Message-ID <[email protected]>
IMNSHO, a protocol extension will succeed only if implementing it brings 
value to the user. If implementing e.g the SMTP MUMBLE extension 
doesn't benefit either the implementor or the user, and does benefit 
someone else greatly, then that extension isn't going to be implemented 
very much.

I may be wrong, of course. But let's suppose I'm right. In that case:

1. Mobile MUAs get considerable benefit from compressing messages as 
they go from/to the server, so an SMTP/POP/IMAP extension to provide 
compression for all messages or all attachments ought to be fairly 
widely implemented by authors of such MUAs (and likely seldom by 
others).

2. Even mobile MUAs don't get much benefit from c-t-e: deflate, since 
that works only when both the message sender and all receivers support 
it, which'll be fairly seldom. Authors of clients who assume ethernet 
to the server almost never get any benefit.

Arnt
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.