On Oct 25, 2007, at 9:59 AM, Laurence Bates wrote:
>
> All of which seems to me to be a mute point. Why on earth is
> anyone arguing
> that email should be slow?
I don't know that I have seen anyone arguing for it to be slow. I see
them arguing that greylisting is an effective measure against spam.
It appears that the statistics also support that.
> Ten to fifteen years ago the bandwidths between
> email sites were such that email was slow of necessity. Today,
> email is a
> drop in the bandwidth bucket and rather than expecting delays we
> should be
> much more in tune with the common expectation that email is close to
> immediate.
That is going under the assumption that there is merely a bandwidth
issue. With the exception of MSU's email group, I don't know that
anyone on this list is necessarily qualified to remark on how much
bandwidth/how many cpu cycles/how many blinkenlichten the mail system
needs at any given time.
> CPU problems in filtering spam I can understand but intentional
> built-in delays are IMHO incompatible with 21st century organizational
> practices. This is the NOW generation, not the maybe-sometime crew
> and
> email for business, group scheduling and collaboration should be
> delivered
> NOW except in cases of exceptional technical constraint or equipment
> failure. Quite frankly, if I have to wait 30 seconds for some
> software
> company to send me a software activation code via email, that's
> already too
> long.
What about something like instant messaging? It can be just as secure
as any email system and it is definitely instant. I have worked for
organizations before that have used IM quite successfully as a means
(instantaneously) of collaborating securely over long distances.
--Ray
|