Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols

[Philip Hazel <[e-mail]>]

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 
ridiculously short (e.g. 1 minute), and leave several megabytes in their 
mailboxes, this hits the machine badly. We make a continuous effort to
educate the users to probe no more than every 5 minutes, and not to set
"leave mail on server", but people being what they are, this is a battle
that can never be entirely won.

IMAP, in contrast, because it keeps a session going throughout, and 
doesn't need to download the entire mailbox to find the list of 
messages, is much lighter on the server.

> Of course, the users understandably want the features of IMAP so we're
> getting pushed in that direction, but there will definitely be a price
> corresponding to much higher server resources and administrative time
> needed over POP.

So I would argue that that isn't always the case (at least for server 
resources). I realise, of course, that in a different scenario, the 
trade-offs are different.

-- 
Philip Hazel            University of Cambridge Computing Service,
[e-mail]      Cambridge, England. Phone: [phone].