Re: [Imap-protocol] If Crispin were creating IMAP today how would it be different?

> 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?
_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol