3 ms·
That's quite insightful to compare a 1986 network protocol to a 1986 planet, thank you for enlightening me. Now I feel justified comparing a 1986 network proto
by PeterGriffin 12y ago
That's quite insightful to compare a 1986 network protocol to a 1986 planet, thank you for enlightening me.
Now I feel justified comparing a 1986 network protocol to a 1986 pizza. Would you take a bite?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- asveikau 12y agoMy point was that old is not a cheap way to boost your argument. TCP is also old. So? A list of reasons why it doesn't work would be more convincing. IMAP works.
- PeterGriffin 12y agoUnderstood. Saying "old" is an invalid argument, even among people who are supposed to understand the context. But comparing IMAP to Earth is very valid. It's a marvel of rational thought. You must be very popular. Everyone who uses IMAP knows its weaknesses. I'm not going to write a book here. It's very, very slow; it has bizarre choices - I still don't understand why I need to delete my message, and then delete the deleted message; it doesn't support now commonplace modern features like tags; its push extension is so naive and resource taxing, companies just implement their own, even when otherwise trying to use IMAP. But just being slow is an argument enough. I use a few email clients, only one client uses IMAP, and my stomach curls into a ball every time I open it, because I know it'll be synching forever. Even if IMAP being old is a poor argument, me getting old while waiting for it synching, sure is.