Re: IM2000 Won't Be Worth It
Charles Cazabon <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.im2000 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > As far as I can see, this is not the problem. The problem is the cost > of maintaining the network connection. In case of IM2000, it seems > the recipient needs to maintain network connection while he is trying > to decide which email actually to see. > > In Eastern Europe, this is a cost people would not tolerate. For > example, my mother automatically discards messages greater than > 30K---so your 65K message would have never made it to her mailbox. IM2000 will reduce the cost of retrieving your mail. In your mother's case, she can retrieve all of her waiting notifications very quickly (they're very small, and the protocol doesn't involve a lot of round-trip delays), her MUA will automatically then retrieve messages from her regular correspondents (all in parallel, perhaps, to maximize throughput and minimize aggregate transfer time). It might also automatically retrieve only the summary headers of all of her other waiting messages, which she can look through /offline/ and decide which to ignore and which to retreive automatically the /next/ time she's online for a minute or two. Between that, the lower incidence of UBE in her "inbox" (because of the different cost structure of IM2000), and the more efficient protocols, she'll use less online time to get her mail than she does today. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[email protected]> GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.ca/~charlesc/software/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------