ive.org> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Comment: no
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i
X-Decanonizer: current version 0.2005.05.10
for j4RMOhww016410 from localhost [127.0.0.1]
at 1117232684: Fri May 27 22:24:44 2005 [0.172s]
* On 2005.05.27, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> yes, it'd have to happen without actually reading the mailbox. Guess a
> "last checked time" database would be needed.
That's actually the point of the patch. It adjusts a user's allowable
check frequency based on his or her individual usage, and remembers the
last check time for each user separately.
The only thing in this that's not done is allowing the response message
to be configured. And that's necessary; I won't change it evenly to "No
new messages" across the board. The original proof of concept patch did
that, and our support center objected that they'd get calls from people
who got "no new messages" and then a big flood of new messages on the
next check. They *wanted* an error response.
I'll make it a runtime option.
--
-D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] NSIT University of Chicago
