sorry for this, please remind me how to unsubscribe to this list.
-----Original Message-----
From: cliftonr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 1:08 PM
To: chuck+qpopper
Cc: qpopper
Subject: Re: fast-update on a user/group basis
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 09:46:54AM -0700, Chuck Yerkes wrote:
> Quoting Clifton Royston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 10:47:55AM -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
> ...
> > > It will delete messages from the inbox but it won't write
> > > anything new to it. Will this cause any problems? I'm
considering
> > > switching to Imp or whatever other webmail package I can find
that is
> > > highly customizable.
> >
> > IMAP-based webmail packages are very resource intensive; they tend
to
> > open one IMAP connection per thing you do in the webmail which is a
> > nightmare scenario for IMAP daemons. Disk I/O = mailbox size *
number
> > of mouse clicks, as one admin put it.
>
> SOME Webmail packages can be abusive to the mailstore. IMP
> and Squirrelmail do that. Others maintain a state and keep a
> single connection option (which IMAP "likes"). (sendmail's webmail
product,
> others).
I should have said "All non-commercial IMAP-based webmail packages I
know of are very resource intensive." UW is working on one that's not,
but it may be far off. I know of sendmail's, but I don't know of any
non-commercial one, nor of any stateful IMAP proxy which could
alleviate the problem.
If you can shell out for sendmail's solution, then yes, that's a good
option.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
