Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols

kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) Mon, 02 October 2000 22:59 UTC

Received: from cs.utk.edu (CS.UTK.EDU [128.169.94.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA15404 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:59:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id SAA29635; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:58:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:57:07 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id SAA29490; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:57:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id SAA29446; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:56:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com (194.25.134.80 -> mailout01.sul.t-online.com) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:56:47 -0400
Received: from fmrl02.sul.t-online.de by mailout01.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 13gEVl-0006B2-00; Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:56:41 +0200
Received: from khms.westfalen.de (340048396503-0001@[62.158.128.42]) by fmrl02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 13gEVY-16wsJUC; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:56:28 +0200
Received: from root by khms.westfalen.de with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 13gEVX-0006uZ-01 (Debian); Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:56:27 +0200
Received: by khms.westfalen.de (CrossPoint v3.12d.kh5 R/C435); 03 Oct 2000 00:48:01 +0200
Date: 02 Oct 2000 20:40:00 +0200
From: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen)
To: drums@cs.utk.edu
Message-ID: <7n6GeilHw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0009290910090.19376-100000@libra.cus.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
X-Mailer: CrossPoint v3.12d.kh5 R/C435
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Organisation? Me?! Are you kidding?
References: <yllmwcm9qa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <Pine.SOL.4.21.0009290910090.19376-100000@libra.cus.cam.ac.uk>
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Comment: Unsolicited commercial mail will incur an US$100 handling fee per received mail.
X-Fix-Your-Modem: +++ATS2=255&WO1
X-Sender: 340048396503-0001@t-dialin.net
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Philip Hazel)  wrote on 29.09.00 in <Pine.SOL.4.21.0009290910090.19376-100000@libra.cus.cam.ac.uk>:

> On 28 Sep 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > We much prefer POP from the server side.
>
> We don't, but then we have permanently connected clients that keep
> probing for new mail at regular intervals. POP requires a password
> authentication for each probe, and a download of the entire mailbox to
> check for new messages. When the users set their probe interval

Um, there's *nothing* in POP that requires "a download of the entire  
mailbox to check for new messages".

The copying of mbox files you probably mean is a feature of POP servers  
which use mbox mail files, which certainly isn't the best design in the  
world. Try the same with, say, Maildir, or any other mailbox format that  
doesn't require you to rewrite the whole mailbox if you just want to, say,  
delete a message, or change a status flag on a message, and the problem  
should go away.

Don't blame the protocol for a suboptimal implementation.

MfG Kai