At Monday, May 21, 2001, 7:50:35 PM, Syafril jotted down what is below:
>>>> that's what I've always done. Why would it be wrong for TB! to do
>>>> the same to speed the connection up?
> As Alexander Leschinsky said, connect to POPServer using more than one
> using same username is against RFC (see RFC-1939, section 4,
> Authorization State).
You keep misunderstanding me :)
I don't want TB! to connect using more than one connection at once. This
would be insane.
I only meant NOT WAITING FOR THE SERVER'S ANSWER when it's pretty obvious
what the server will say, and proceeding with the dialogue so that the
connection "looks" like a faster connection (while TB! would be making
sure-fire GUESSES at the server's answers).
> I didn't see POP3 server who support PipeLining (interest to developt
> ?), on most case POP3 server will store the client command on the
> buffer (something like Latency Buffer) to force subsequence command
> (which not response yet) to delay for a while. This mechanism to
> prevent Buffer Overrun problem.
I don't know what in fact "pipelining" is about. I only know that when I
issue a command to the server, it's placed in the server socket's buffer
and waits there for execution. And that's what I wanted to take advantage
of. If there's nothing against this in RFC, it WOULD make a nice speedup
feature for slow connectors.
--
If your parents didn't have any children, neither will you.
|\ /| \~~~/ \~~~/ WWW: http://maxxx.ii.com.pl (ancient)
| \/ | /\ > < \~/ > < E-M: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (no spam please)
|____| /__\ /___\ /_\ /___\ ICQ: 3146019 (currently inactive)
Flyin' high with The Bat! v1.53 Beta/6
over the swamps of Windows NT 5.0 build 2195
--
______________________________________________________
Archives : <http://tbbeta.thebat.dutaint.com>
Moderators : <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
