Patch: support BURL
in [Postfix]
|
From: Victor Duchovni on 9 Apr 2010 17:33 On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:09:27PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > One question I have is why would anyone send an email message that > is 100% identical to a message that is already sitting in an IMAP > store? It would seem that this is useful only when forwarding mail > verbatim. Is this worth the effort to adopt and forever maintain > another 1500 lines of code? This is designed for bandwidth constrained email clients (think iPhone, hence not too surprising to see this contribution from Apple) where sending the same message twice, once to the SMTP server for submission and another time to the IMAP server to keep a "Sent" copy wastes precious bandwidth (and in some cases money for said bandwidth). Hence BURL. > Another question is how this would integrate with Milter support > which currently provides access to a wide range of extensions > for filtering, mail authentication, and so on. Presumably milter support should be just the same as with ordinary email, so we may need to make "BURL" look like "DATA" to milters. I don't expect that milters should treat the two differently. -- Viktor. P.S. Morgan Stanley is looking for a New York City based, Senior Unix system/email administrator to architect and sustain our perimeter email environment. If you are interested, please drop me a note.
From: Wietse Venema on 9 Apr 2010 18:16 Victor Duchovni: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:09:27PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > One question I have is why would anyone send an email message that > > is 100% identical to a message that is already sitting in an IMAP > > store? It would seem that this is useful only when forwarding mail > > verbatim. Is this worth the effort to adopt and forever maintain > > another 1500 lines of code? > > This is designed for bandwidth constrained email clients Perhaps the question is not clear, so I will repeat it. What is the use case for sending an email message that is 100% identical to an already received email message, as in, no user content is added to the message, and no content is deleted from the message? Wietse
From: Wietse Venema on 9 Apr 2010 19:48 > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Wietse Venema <wietse(a)porcupine.org> wrote: > > Victor Duchovni: > >> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 05:09:27PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > >> > >> > One question I have is why would anyone send an email message that > >> > is 100% identical to a message that is already sitting in an IMAP > >> > store? It would seem that this is useful only when forwarding mail > >> > verbatim. Is this worth the effort to adopt and forever maintain > >> > another 1500 lines of code? > >> > >> This is designed for bandwidth constrained email clients > > > > Perhaps the question is not clear, so I will repeat it. > > > > What is the use case for sending an email message that is 100% > > identical to an already received email message, as in, no user > > content is added to the message, and no content is deleted from > > the message? > > > > ? ? ? ?Wietse > > > > Mail client will write message to imap folder and MTA will get the > message. Avoid send messahe twice over the link. Why is there a problem with sending mail to the SMTP server directly, instead of taking an indirect route via an IMAP server? Wietse
From: Reinaldo de Carvalho on 9 Apr 2010 20:17 On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Wietse Venema <wietse(a)porcupine.org> wrote: >> >> Mail client will write message to imap folder and MTA will get the >> message. Avoid send messahe twice over the link. >> >>-- >>Reinaldo de Carvalho >> > > Why is there a problem with sending mail to the SMTP server directly, > instead of taking an indirect route via an IMAP server? > > Wietse > IMAP users will benefit saving bandwidth ($/Kbyte) and time (in slow connections). -- Reinaldo de Carvalho
From: Wietse Venema on 9 Apr 2010 20:51
Reinaldo de Carvalho: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Wietse Venema <wietse(a)porcupine.org> wrote: > >> > >> Mail client will write message to imap folder and MTA will get the > >> message. Avoid send messahe twice over the link. > >> > >>-- > >>Reinaldo de Carvalho > >> > > > > Why is there a problem with sending mail to the SMTP server directly, > > instead of taking an indirect route via an IMAP server? > > > > ? ? ? ?Wietse > > > > IMAP users will benefit saving bandwidth ($/Kbyte) and time (in slow > connections). That would not explain why sending to an IMAP server is faster than sending that same message to an SMTP server. Wietse |