ya, thanks for the flame, every think that my mail program hides headers?
-----Original Message----- From: Seth.Master [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:09 AM To: chuck+qpopper; cliftonr Cc: qpopper Subject: RE: fast-update on a user/group basis 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
