Re: Exclusive-access locking of maildrop

[Steve Dorner <[e-mail]>]

At 4:10 PM 6/1/94, Michael D'Errico wrote:
>Either way, the IMAP server has to be "POP-aware" which means there
>needs to be a standard way to lock maildrops, etc. so that different
>implementations can interact correctly.

There has to be some standard way to lock maildrops in any case, or a lot
of things break.  Delivery agents, mail servers, and mail user agents all
need to be able to stay out of one another's hair.

>The only other ways to enforce this are
>to force people to use POP and IMAP servers from the same implementor
>(assuming that the servers cooperate) or to pick one protocol over the
>other.

Doesn't bother me much.  I don't expect that there will be a lot of cases
of simultaneous multi-protocol write/delete access to a single maildrop.
If that is your thing, then you stay with the IMAP vendor for your POP3
server.  Anybody going to the trouble of writing an IMAP server has very
little extra work to do (I'm sure JGM will correct me if I'm wrong) to
support little ol' POP3, so this should be doable if it's a priority for
somebody.  You could even run a different POP3 server on another port if
the POP3 from the IMAP vendor is unacceptable to some users (though of
course those users better not touch IMAP with a ten-foot (excuse me,
"three-meter") pole).

--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Incorporated
 "There's nothing wrong with you that can't be cured
  with a little Prozac and a polo mallet." - Woody Allen