4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoNo 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 agoThe question specifies client communication. Replacing SMTP in the network is also a valid issue, but it is not the question that was asked here.