Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols

Terje Bless <link@tss.no> Tue, 03 October 2000 17:12 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 NAA18053 for <drums-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA07405; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:10:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by cs.utk.edu (bulk_mailer v1.13); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:10:47 -0400
Received: by cs.utk.edu (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA07355; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:10:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nova.nhn.no (marvin@localhost) by cs.utk.edu with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id NAA07295; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:10:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nova.nhn.no (193.215.180.94 -> fw0.nhn.no) by cs.utk.edu (smtpshim v1.0); Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:10:33 -0400
Received: from polka.nhn.no (polka.nhn.No [172.21.1.35]) by nova.nhn.no (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id e93HAPo85666 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:10:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from walldo.rito.no (thewall.rito.no [172.20.3.9]) by polka.nhn.no (8.10.1/8.10.1) with SMTP id e93HALZ36849 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:10:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from 172.20.3.34 by walldo.rito.no (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 03 Oct 2000 19:02:58 +0200 (W. Europe Daylight Time)
Received: (from root@localhost) by smap.rito.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA30100 for <drums@cs.utk.edu>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:09:13 +0200
Received: from odin.rito.no(172.20.4.17) by smap via smap (V2.1) id xma030030; Tue, 3 Oct 00 18:08:30 +0200
Received: by odin4.rito.no with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <S9KR1RP4>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:07:23 +0200
Received: from 10.0.0.4 (edbtbe-gw.rito.no [172.19.2.37]) by ODIN4.rito.no with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id S9KR1RPF; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 19:07:10 +0200
From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
To: DRUMS <drums@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:45:54 +0200
Subject: Re: Internet Draft for flexible proxying of the mail protocols
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <7n6GeilHw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
Message-ID: <20001003190920-r01010600-10ea4280@10.0.0.4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.1.6 (Bluto)
X-Mailer: BBEmail 1.0 :-)
X-RITO-Security-Class: ikke sensitiv (not classified)
X-Face: ozNb;yy0vRA)Y5]3Sv?]z;NK(Oq#:W8<"{=UsbG'(5<.@LRh<)H];[z4CTcda F6Bf97@gO=GjS4uo`'Rg2)i"g{JY}LIq\CDYan1u>#5mIfC?>tBX'&A^SspU\ewW36Xo a1r."h14;C/*WM;-e:=
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:drums-request@cs.utk.edu?Subject=unsubscribe>

On 02.10.00 at 20:40, Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:

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

Doesn't UIDL return a complete message list (message # plus MD5)? IIRC, the
only way to avoid this is to use a "last message" pointer (which doesn't
work well) because POP has no equivalent to NNTP NEWNEWS.

It's a bit hard to tell given the implementation specific problem you
mentioned, but it seems to me that there is significant overhead involved a
trivial mail check using POP. Then again, I've never written a POP MUA of
that magnitude so I may be wrong.


-- 
As a cat owner, I know this for a fact...
Nothing says "I love you" like a decapitated gopher on your front porch.