 |
 |
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