On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 01:34:46AM +0000, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > sure, smtp is older, but protocol age is > irrelevant. > > right now http/2 is more developed and much more > efficient (e.g. compressed binary, pipelining, > single connection multiplexing, encryption by > default). even http1.4 was a more efficient > replacement.
I don't think you fully understand Grant's point. Whilst HTTP(/2) may be more featureful for serving web pages, it makes absolutely no sense to use for anything but. Protocol age absolutely _is not_ irrelevant: SMTP has been ubiquitous in mail transportation for many years, and thus, every single mail client supports it pretty close to the RFC. Moreover, as Grant mentioned in the previous message, it is the only reliable method of reliably transferring messages to and fro systems which, in most cases, differ quite vastly in every element _except_ their understanding of SMTP. Interoperability is the entire point of protocol standardisation in the first place, and if you're going to suggest a revision, or complete overhaul, of a standard as well-understood as SMTP, you need to provide extremely compelling evidence which supports your proposed replacement. So far, you haven't done that. SMTP can be tricky and unwieldy to configure on certain (most) implementations, but that does not indicate a lack of features. The complete opposite, in fact. With that said, if you'd like to propose a standard and write a reference implementation, that is how most new ideas in computing arise. I don't think anyone would attempt to stop you from doing that; we're merely suggesting that your current idea of the HTTP-for-mail protocol is flawed. -- Ashley Dixon suugaku.co.uk 2A9A 4117 DA96 D18A 8A7B B0D2 A30E BF25 F290 A8AA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
