IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [imap5] Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP

Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> Thu, 16 February 2012 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <brong@fastmail.fm>
X-Original-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: imap5@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8A821F86A2 for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:57:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gWaoDTXQlEri for <imap5@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1532221F8698 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:57:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.45]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9576C21309 for <imap5@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:57:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:57:46 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=hSLGl0/OsWWHLBEtjElLrLvG AOQ=; b=CBBcZVYcTehdeIrTIotgaEz+h7Sgn1rbVTdaNDtKyI0tutZLaJGpo8Pb zc5lrq4rFDLIP29eUJ3iRRysTFP+FBg5YSOPcJlHeGL02YY7wssk4hRt35FAL+Tn cCbegdlXhBUM33IM/iTjw4jFJn6u3FApliqboxVC5A2nT1gZG0c=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=hSLGl0/OsWWHLBEtjElLrLvGAOQ=; b=Pmsr0invZnkUi4aIkgDx+1xC5MOa JsQBz5rG9/LQISSC1GntinublQsW13d4EbeKXfFbOCfFLBruPX48UsC1lHVKstQm het5qAkrzWYQUpkHIe43HLhA2eKYC/3B9DWngmZ6z/Bh397Qh/grC0ZFHYZjMC36 s9RpX9PiJcgjwJo=
X-Sasl-enc: ULOfqS0T8P3ICKGkuc1k84JfEYOZZ17htIcQZ0VOlqSy 1329404266
Received: from localhost (99.249.9.46.customer.cdi.no [46.9.249.99]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C1444827C5; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 09:57:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 13B3F118A4A; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:57:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:57:45 +0100
From: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Message-ID: <20120216145745.GB21339@launde.brong.net>
References: <20120213210805.GB13029@launde.brong.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202151405550.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <1329315552.1444.140661036879893@webmail.messagingengine.com> <4F3BBFA4.8010107@isode.com> <1329316981.8310.140661036883625@webmail.messagingengine.com> <66F68487BF0EED4BA7D767E2410F30B3EFF259456A@FRSPX100.fr01.awl.atosorigin.net> <20120215211301.GA16253@launde.brong.net> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161126410.31357@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <1329396103.8954.140661037328961@webmail.messagingengine.com> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161305220.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1202161305220.30682@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Organization: brong.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [imap5] Designing a new replacement protocol for IMAP
X-BeenThere: imap5@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion on drastically slimming-down IMAP." <imap5.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/imap5>
List-Post: <mailto:imap5@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imap5>, <mailto:imap5-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:57:52 -0000

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 01:06:11PM +0000, Tony Finch wrote:
> Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > Not really.  Existing servers would be a lot more efficient with a query
> > which limited to a single "folder", for sure - because they could optimise
> > it.  But it's no different than an SQL query across a partitioned table.
> > It means your in-memory-state needs to be big enough to accommodate all
> > the mailboxes that might be in the regular searches, of course.
> 
> Have you seen UW-IMAP's in-memory state? :-)

Nup - I've seen Cyrus' though.  It could be trimmed considerably if we
had to...

Bron.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email