

Why don't we use HTTP for email? - rvkennedy

When accessed from a mail client, mail servers expect connections by IMAP, POP, and SMTP. The back-end inter-server comms use SMTP. But HTTP requests are standard for many non-web internet apps. Aside from historical reasons (the mail protocols predate HTTP and are well-established) why have mail providers not moved towards HTTP (or HTTPS) as a well-supported, flexible standard for client communication? If the mail protocols continue to evolve, what are the arguments for keeping them separate?
======
dwc
If rms can use SMTP for web pages, we might as well do the opposite. ;-)

Email has different needs than do web pages, thus the protocols are different.
_Could_ one implement email over HTTP? Sure! But what, exactly, will be the
benefits and costs? And then there _is_ history. Unless the benefits are
extremely compelling it will never be worthwhile to upset the entire email
infrastructure.

~~~
HerraBRE
Depending on your point of view, you might say we are already moving in this
direction. :-)

A large number of people consume e-mail using HTTP, so it has in many cases
replaced IMAP and POP. We also send e-mail using HTTP, both through web-mail
systems and ad-hoc forms. This replaces SMTP-for-sending.

All that's left really is the server-to-server SMTP, and if the distributed
social networking protocols (OStatus etc) take off, then SMTP will have been
partially replaced as well.

The main issue is that aside from OStatus, none of these are remotely close to
being standardized. So automation is hard. This is good for preventing spam
but bad for many legitimate things.

~~~
kolinko
Well - as for people using HTTP to browse e-mail... People never used SMTP to
send mail, they used software (sendmail/pine in the earliest days iirc). So
this argument is invalid :)

------
wkearney99
There's an old saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
nail." A saying that often fits those enamored of HTTP tools....

Why do we have Spanish? Or English? Or any other language? Can't it all be
said in one?

Similarly there are some things that get handled in one protocol that can't be
as readily executed in others. Yes, you could do mail using HTTP transactions,
but then you'd have to add all the layers that make up IMAP and SMTP actions.
Wheel, meet your reinvention.

------
sigil
An old thread about designing a replacement for IMAP:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1101693>

~~~
rvkennedy
That's a really good thread, thank you!

------
kgo
Can you provide reasons why you think this is a good idea? How it would make
your life easier? Or what is broken with the current protocols?

I think a stronger argument would be for moving from MIME to XML, I can
envision some advantages there, but I don't think that will happen anytime due
to inertia.

~~~
spinchange
Replacing the convoluted multi-party email forward with a dynamic document
would be nice.

------
tobylane
We barely hear of Google's SPDY, I bet they are secretly working on something
like this. They aren't the type to unnecessarly bundle it in with http in
SPDY, but maybe they found a reason.

