4 ms·

> I continue to push my creativity and find new things to throw in to the protocol, ideas that wouldn't have to be there when the first part hits, but that its

by nknight 15y ago

> I continue to push my creativity and find new things to throw in to the protocol, ideas that wouldn't have to be there when the first part hits, but that its extensibility would make possible. This by itself makes me believe this is doomed. Part of the problem with IMAP is that it's incredibly complex. That complexity, and differing interpretations of that complexity, is a huge part of what makes IMAP such a headache to deal with. Simplicity is a virtue. Don't add everything you can think of, strip out everything you don't absolutely have to have. It's fine if the protocol is extensible, but your first and primary goal should be to have a system that synchronizes email reliably and efficiently. Get that right, then start worrying about the extra stuff. Until then, you're just making life harder.

Navarr 15y ago
You're absolutely right! Thank you. I'll need to take extra care to focus on the main issue before extending it. I just also want the extensibility to be a center focus, so that it can expand to be a synchronization protocol instead of only an email protocol.
- karl_nerd 15y ago
  Can someone shoot this thing down: What if we think 'data synchronisation protocol' instead of 'e-mail protocol'? E-mail would then be an 'append only' application of this. The protocols focus would be to register a piece of data, keep track of the 'owner' and sharers and maintain synchronisation (preferably in a peer-to-peer way). I know this problem is big, but once it's done in a reliable way it would be simple to build a good e-mail-style communication on top of it.
  - JoachimSchipper 15y ago
    UUCP was pretty much this. E-mail was, in fact, built on top of it; at least Sendmail still supports it. I'm sure you can still find the reasons for the transition to SMTP somewhere. Try, again, Sendmail archives.
  - derefr 15y ago
    You mean... Google Wave?
    - Navarr 15y ago
      Google Wave wasn't a data-synchronization protocol.
- Navarr 15y ago
  @karl_nerd: You understand what I mean instead of just what I'm saying! <3 hearts for you

by nknight 15y ago

Navarr 15y ago

You're absolutely right! Thank you. I'll need to take extra care to focus on the main issue before extending it. I just also want the extensibility to be a center focus, so that it can expand to be a synchronization protocol instead of only an email protocol.

karl_nerd 15y ago
Can someone shoot this thing down: What if we think 'data synchronisation protocol' instead of 'e-mail protocol'? E-mail would then be an 'append only' application of this. The protocols focus would be to register a piece of data, keep track of the 'owner' and sharers and maintain synchronisation (preferably in a peer-to-peer way). I know this problem is big, but once it's done in a reliable way it would be simple to build a good e-mail-style communication on top of it.
- JoachimSchipper 15y ago
  UUCP was pretty much this. E-mail was, in fact, built on top of it; at least Sendmail still supports it. I'm sure you can still find the reasons for the transition to SMTP somewhere. Try, again, Sendmail archives.
- derefr 15y ago
  You mean... Google Wave?
  - Navarr 15y ago
    Google Wave wasn't a data-synchronization protocol.
Navarr 15y ago
@karl_nerd: You understand what I mean instead of just what I'm saying! <3 hearts for you