Subject: Re: [lemonade] Compression: TLS or Application-layer

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:50:45 -0700

> If you insist on "NO TLS!" on wireless devices, then you're forcing
> your customers' email out into the open, where nasties like me can
> listen, and that's going to be painful for your customers. On the
> other hand, if you use TLS, then you can either use the null cipher
> for better battery lifetime, or you can use real crypto.

And don't the vast majority of these devices already support SSL (for 
https)? I am far from convinced that the incremental cost of adding TLS 
is a show stopper. And don't forget, STARTTLS is now mandatory to 
implement in IMAP, so the servers that don't currently support it will 
soon (or will die out due to market pressure).

I am very strongly opposed to adding compression to IMAP itself. TLS 
already provides the infrastructure.

--lyndon

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:33:59 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> And don't the vast majority of these devices already support SSL (for https)?

I wonder about this myself.  Devices that don't support https are 
increasingly non-useful in this day and age. (I know because I have one).

> I am very strongly opposed to adding compression to IMAP itself. TLS already 
> provides the infrastructure.

I agree.  Adding compression to IMAP itself adds complexity for what seem 
to be, at best, short-term gains.

I abandoned my own ideas for a compressed IMAP when I realized that TLS 
could do a much better job.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.