Does nobody ever check the headers of email these days... ??? Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:09:06 -0700 Errors-To: List Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=subscribe> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.pensive.org/mailing_lists/archives/qpopper/> List-Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Owner: Pensive Mailing List Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Help: http://www.pensive.org/Mailing_Lists/ List-Id: <QPopper.lists.pensive.org> List-Software: AutoShare 4.2.3 by Mikael Hansen Subject: RE: fast-update on a user/group basis TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:09:06 -0700"
Read through those and you'll find the oh-so-obvious line which tells you to send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in the body. Sigh... RTFM ? James. > 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 > >
