Re: [imap5] Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On Wed Feb 15 22:36:06 2012, Giovanni Panozzo wrote:
> Il 15/02/2012 22:28, Adrien de Croy ha scritto:
>> 
>> having dealt with support issues relating primarily to HTTP for  
>> the last
>> 17 years, I'd STRONGLY recommend against using anything HTTP  
>> based. The
>> number of proxies that break WebDAV makes it problematic alone.
>> 
>> If some clients need HTTP-based access to some IMAP function, they  
>> can
>> use a gateway.
> 
> Such a gateway should be a mandatory part of the protocol, or we  
> will end up on having a lot of servers with the http gateway and  
> many other servers without it, really bad user experience.
> 
> Could we think a "skype-like" solution, where the client makes two  
> attempts:
> 
> 1) Direct socket connection on a single TCP port
>  and then, in case of failure
> 2) https tunnel of the same protocol (thru optional client side  
> proxy).
>    https is more likely to survive across proxyes than http.

BOSH.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:[e-mail] - xmpp:[e-mail]
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade