Re: Webmail is implementation, not Internet architecture (was Re: Change

> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
> > <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 6/12/2014 6:33 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >     > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:50 AM, John C Klensin
> >     <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com <mailto:john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
> >     ...
> >     >     (2) One of those changes --support for remote body parts-- was
> >     >     incorporated into MIME in its very first version and contains
> >     >     most of the mechanism needed to support what I understand PHB is
> >     >     recommending for PUSH-PULL-PULL.  It has been implemented in
> >     >     several places but has gotten very little traction in the mail
> >     >     sending and receiving community.  IMO, it ought to be incumbent
> >     >     on anyone proposing a different "get notification, then retrieve
> >     >     mail from server" model explain why their ideas will be more
> >     >     successful than that 20-odd-year-old MIME mechanism.
> >     >
> >     > In a word - WebMail.
> >
> >     This is a classic confusion between software implementation and
> >     operation, vesus networking architecture.
> >
> >     Webmail is nothing more than a particular style of user interface,
> >     integrated into the operations of a particular service.
> >
> >
> > It is the mode used by the majority of mail users today. Which makes
> > it rather more than just technology from a deployment point of view.
> That's almost certainly not true, or it's certainly highly questionable.
> Two words:
> 1. Outlook
> 2. Smartphones
Some data to support this conclusion:

  http://emailclientmarketshare.com/

                                Ned