On 08/27/2013 01:17, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:39:16 -0400 The Doctor dr...@virtadpt.net
wrote:
On 08/26/2013 09:26 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Mix networks are, however, a well technique. Onion networks, which
are related, are widely deployed right now in the form of Tor, and
work well. I see little reason to believe mix networks would not
also work well for instant messages and email (see my other
thread, begun yesterday.)
What is considered acceptible latency these days for IM or e-mail?
Supposedly, the highest acceptible latency for web browsing before
the user gets bored and closes the tab is two or three seconds
(supposedly...), so where would the lag for e-mail or IM fall
anymore before users give up on it?
I think tolerance for delays on the web is actually much lower than
that -- even a full second probably drives many users away. That's
why Tor has a much harder problem.
In Email, however, no one really knows their latency -- it is rare
that someone actually is aware that a message has just been sent. I
routinely have SMSes take seconds to go through and yet I use
SMS.
I'd agree with this. On the Web, people are impatient because they're
trying to complete a transaction in real time. It's very rare to expect
an immediate response by email. With IM it depends on the individual
conversation and the feedback you're getting. eg, if you're chatting
with someone in real time and the software shows you the other person is
typing a reply you'll wait, while if there's no feedback you may just
assume they've left the room for some reason. But either way, it's not
fatal.
Latency issues really apply much more to things that stream - audio,
video, voice calls. And high-speed trading, but that seems beyond the
scope of this conversation.
wg
--
www.pelicancrossing.net -- all about me
Twitter: @wendyg
___
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
