[Top] [All Lists]

Re: compressed content-transfer-encoding?

1999-08-01 08:06:11
moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu (Keith Moore)  wrote on 31.07.99 in 

We really do need to remember just how limited bandwidth (in particular)
and "Internet performance" are in much of the Internet.  Added to that is
that much of the user community pays a usage fee for connection time.

sure, but compressing modems *are* widely deployed.  if the "connection"
uses a compressing modem, any additional savings in "connection time"
resulting from smtp or mime compression is truly marginal.

I don't know about you, but in my experience, modem compression (and  
similar schemes) typically does a fairly poor job.

There's a fairly simple reason. This type of compression must keep  
latencies from growing too much. This *really* hurts compression.

you'll get more connection time savings from pipelining smtp than you
will from compressing the data.

That's only true if the time is dominated by RCPT TO: handling, that is,  
you're sending many small mails. When you're sending a few large mails,  
pipelining is completely irrelevant, and compression is very important,  
because you spend most of the time in the DATA phase anyway.

I don't think anyone really wants compression for small mails.

MfG Kai