16 Jul 2008, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> But there are IMAP clients which correctly implement IMAP and issue a large
> number of IMAP commands that complete quickly with a negligible footprint.
> They should not be penalized for the sins of others.
While I agree with the notion that penalizing proper (efficient) behavior is
not fair, could it not be argued that since the three top IMAP clients
(Thunderbird, Outlook, and Mail.app) are all flawed in the respect of doing
inefficient 'for i in' style loops, it is not insane to have a server-side
option to mitigate one client's ability to run amok on the system?
Granted, the quick solution is to disable IMAP keyword support, but
functionality lost is, arguably, one of the neater ones available via IMAP.
Of course I say all this without even a quarter of a clue what it'd take to
rate-limit IMAP connections coming from a client, which may be so infeasible
as to be impractical.
--
When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.
-- Harry Truman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
courier-users mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
