Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols

Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk> Fri, 29 September 2000 08:21 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 EAA24961 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id EAA00019; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:21:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:21:40 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id EAA29998; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:21:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from libra.cus.cam.ac.uk (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id EAA29984; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from libra.cus.cam.ac.uk (131.111.8.19 -> libra.cus.cam.ac.uk) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:21:37 -0400
Received: from ph10 (helo=localhost) by libra.cus.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.16 #3) id 13evQD-0005bs-00; Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:21:33 +0100
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:21:33 +0100 (BST)
From: Philip Hazel <ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
To: Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>
cc: drums@cs.utk.edu, ietf-smtp@imc.org
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
In-Reply-To: <yllmwcm9qa.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0009290910090.19376-100000@libra.cus.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

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,
ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk      Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.