On 18/08/2016 08:06, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Fwiw I find the arguments below unpersuasive, but here they are and
maybe we can do this round very quickly:
Compressing can let mobile clients upload faster to submission
servers, achieving a better approximation of atomicity. I find this
weak because they do not seem to pipeline and hardly anyone seems to
have shown any interest in lemonade, not even to consider and reject it.
Compressing can help ESPs and big receivers. Well, perhaps, but both
of those have enough bandwidth to do it the simple, reliable way.
Compressing can help spammers avoid detection when on botnets by using
less bandwidth 😅
I think points against it are:
- it will take several years before any new option is widely
implemented enough to make any difference. By then it is probable that
mobile clients will have better access to fast Internet, so the
percieved benefit to them will be reduced, reducing incentive to
implement the option.
- compression will give little real gain for small messages. The
biggest potential gains would be for big messages. However, big messages
will usually contain attachments. Many common attachments are already
compressed (eg JPG, PNG, DOCX etc) so further attempts to compress those
will gain little. (AIUI base64 encoding, even of uncompressed data, also
reduces compressability).
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp