Re: [MORG] Why IMAP extensions are (not) used

[Mark Crispin <markrcrispin at panda.com>]

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> or, pedantically, (3) they need the functionality and providing an IMAP 
> interface is essentially cost-free.

There is no such thing as "cost-free" for features, at least not if you 
have a real company with QA and support.  Freeware server implementors may 
have the luxury of implementing random stuff for fun.

> A couple of hours ago someone sent me mail saying essentially «blah issues 
> 350 SELECTs and 350 SEARCHes and it's unpleasantly slow». I think the sender 
> might just possibly consider multimailbox search to fit group 3 ;)

If 350 SELECTs and 350 SEARCHes are unpleasantly slow, what makes you 
think that multimailbox search will be different?

It will save 700 RTTs, which can certainly be unpleasant.  But, unless the 
server has instantaneous SELECT and SEARCH, there are more substantial 
costs elsewhere.

The advantage of the 700 RTTs it is clear to anyone looking at the 
resulting network traffic that what the client is doing is idiotic. 
Compare this to a server command that takes 20 minutes to complete.

> It's also possible to use INTHREAD differently 
> in clients (e.g. send 350 THREAD commands in addition to the 350 SELECTs 
> above), of course.

It's also possible to have a more intelligent client that uses the 
facilities that exist already.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.