[geeks] nerd reading for a Friday night ... old-skool waxed

[der Mouse]

> UUCP was efficient because it operated on compressed batches.

> Almost all other protocols are very inefficient.

Efficient in the use of what resource?  Unlike the environment UUCP is
(was) designed for, SMTP-carrying networks generally do not consider
connect time a resource worth optimizing for.  Bandwidth use is
sometimes optimized for, but more often debugging ease and delivery
speed win over it.

> I don't see why they don't implement compressed batch SMTP.

Because the resources whose use it would improve are not worth
improving (or at least are not generally seen that way), as compared to
the downsides it would bring.

There's also the adoption problem: compressed batch SMTP is possible
only when both sender and receiver implement it.  There is no advantage
to the first adopter and only very minor advantages to early adopters
(except, perhaps, those who exchange mail with only a comparatively few
hosts which are also early adopters).  And, of course disadvanrages to
all adopters (new code bringing new bugs, delivery delays, debugging
difficulties, those are just the first ones to come to mind).

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B