4 ms·

If rms can use SMTP for web pages, we might as well do the opposite. ;-) Email has different needs than do web pages, thus the protocols are different. Could o

by dwc 16y ago

If rms can use SMTP for web pages, we might as well do the opposite. ;-) Email has different needs than do web pages, thus the protocols are different. Could one implement email over HTTP? Sure! But what, exactly, will be the benefits and costs? And then there is history. Unless the benefits are extremely compelling it will never be worthwhile to upset the entire email infrastructure.

rvkennedy 16y ago
HTTP is used for a lot more than just web pages - as I mentioned above, it's a de facto standard for a great many internet applications that are not web-based. The benefits - well, Gabor Cselle summarizes these quite well (http://blog.gaborcselle.com/2010/02/how-to-replace-imap.html http://blog.gaborcselle.com/2010/02/how-to-replace-imap.html) - so many problems have already been solved with HTTP due to the massive interest in the web over the past 20 years. But I take issue with the idea that replacing IMAP with HTTP would in any way upset the email infrastructure. Changing the client protocol does precisely nothing to the infrastructure, unless you choose also to replace SMTP completely. I could write my own server for my own email account, with HTTP for the client, and as long as it used SMTP to send and receive in the network, no-one would see any difference.
- dwc 16y ago
  No need to take issue with something I didn't say. You mention IMAP, POP and SMTP as targets for replacement. I agree that it's workable to add an additional client protocol without disruption. If it were good then people would support it. If it were good enough then the other protocols would fall into disuse and eventual deprecation. Replacing SMTP would be problematic, though.
  - rvkennedy 16y ago
    The question specifies client communication. Replacing SMTP in the network is also a valid issue, but it is not the question that was asked here.
HerraBRE 16y ago
Depending on your point of view, you might say we are already moving in this direction. :-) A large number of people consume e-mail using HTTP, so it has in many cases replaced IMAP and POP. We also send e-mail using HTTP, both through web-mail systems and ad-hoc forms. This replaces SMTP-for-sending. All that's left really is the server-to-server SMTP, and if the distributed social networking protocols (OStatus etc) take off, then SMTP will have been partially replaced as well. The main issue is that aside from OStatus, none of these are remotely close to being standardized. So automation is hard. This is good for preventing spam but bad for many legitimate things.
- kolinko 16y ago
  Well - as for people using HTTP to browse e-mail... People never used SMTP to send mail, they used software (sendmail/pine in the earliest days iirc). So this argument is invalid :)

by dwc 16y ago

rvkennedy 16y ago

HTTP is used for a lot more than just web pages - as I mentioned above, it's a de facto standard for a great many internet applications that are not web-based. The benefits - well, Gabor Cselle summarizes these quite well (http://blog.gaborcselle.com/2010/02/how-to-replace-imap.html http://blog.gaborcselle.com/2010/02/how-to-replace-imap.html) - so many problems have already been solved with HTTP due to the massive interest in the web over the past 20 years. But I take issue with the idea that replacing IMAP with HTTP would in any way upset the email infrastructure. Changing the client protocol does precisely nothing to the infrastructure, unless you choose also to replace SMTP completely. I could write my own server for my own email account, with HTTP for the client, and as long as it used SMTP to send and receive in the network, no-one would see any difference.

dwc 16y ago
No need to take issue with something I didn't say. You mention IMAP, POP and SMTP as targets for replacement. I agree that it's workable to add an additional client protocol without disruption. If it were good then people would support it. If it were good enough then the other protocols would fall into disuse and eventual deprecation. Replacing SMTP would be problematic, though.
- rvkennedy 16y ago
  The question specifies client communication. Replacing SMTP in the network is also a valid issue, but it is not the question that was asked here.

HerraBRE 16y ago

Depending on your point of view, you might say we are already moving in this direction. :-) A large number of people consume e-mail using HTTP, so it has in many cases replaced IMAP and POP. We also send e-mail using HTTP, both through web-mail systems and ad-hoc forms. This replaces SMTP-for-sending. All that's left really is the server-to-server SMTP, and if the distributed social networking protocols (OStatus etc) take off, then SMTP will have been partially replaced as well. The main issue is that aside from OStatus, none of these are remotely close to being standardized. So automation is hard. This is good for preventing spam but bad for many legitimate things.

kolinko 16y ago
Well - as for people using HTTP to browse e-mail... People never used SMTP to send mail, they used software (sendmail/pine in the earliest days iirc). So this argument is invalid :)