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

On 3/7/2015 11:50 PM, Bill Janssen wrote:
> CCN is a peer-to-peer broadcast content-caching protocol, so there's no
> "RPC call" from a client to a specific server which then sends a
> response.  The difference is somewhat like point-to-point versus
> packet-switched CDN; instead of encrypting the channel the messages flow
> on, the messages themselves are encrypted and attached to a unique
> handle, and then just "handed out to passing strangers" for them to copy
> and pass on to others (this is exactly what's happening in the
> implementation of an SSL-encrypted TCP connection, of course).  At some
> point the receiver issues a call for that particular handle (which can
> be different for each message), and anyone who has a copy sends it on.
>
> But what I'm doing is an MTA-to-MTA protocol; what you're looking at is
> an MUA-MTA protocol, like IMAP.  On the other hand, in my design the MUA
> *is* the MTA, so perhaps there's no difference.

Sounds an awful lot like how bitmessage works.

L~

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