←back to thread

236 points michidk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.218s | source
Show context
therein ◴[] No.43532935[source]

Interesting no attempt has been made to make it at least be less heavy on networked bytes. Especially since it is old and was meant to be used on a connection with no compression or encryption.

HasChildren could have been Parent, HasNoChildren could have been Leaf or Child. And so many more things.

replies(9): >>43533215 #>>43533340 #>>43533359 #>>43533375 #>>43533379 #>>43534129 #>>43534618 #>>43535965 #>>43537720 #
philipwhiuk ◴[] No.43533215[source]

The protocol has ossified and been entrenched. In general more efficient usage of IMAP relies on extensions to the protocol.

A modern replacement (JMAP) hasn't been adopted by major providers.

If you really cared about data transfer size you'd use something like Protobuf.

replies(4): >>43533521 #>>43535069 #>>43535169 #>>43538005 #
1. jgalt212 ◴[] No.43533521[source]

IMAP COMPRESS?