[Kroupware] Questions about Kmail IMAP-client

[kroupware@mail.kde.org]

On Monday 17 February 2003 06:44, Bo Thorsen wrote:

Hi,

> > > It should only take a long time for the first synchronization, after
> > > that it's only the changes that takes time. The diskspace there

> > traditional IMAP (like 20 second compared to 5 seconds). This doesn't

> Yes, it really is slower for some reason - that's the truth.

Technically there is no reason why offline imap should be slower than 
traditional IMAP in any case.

In addition I have the strong impression that the current imap implementation 
does not use pipelining in order to speed things up.

  "The client MAY send another command without waiting for the
   completion result response of a command, subject to ambiguity rules
   (see below) and flow control constraints on the underlying data
   stream.  Similarly, a server MAY begin processing another command
   before processing the current command to completion, subject to
   ambiguity rules.  However, any command continuation request responses
   and command continuations MUST be negotiated before any subsequent
   command is initiated.

   The exception is if an ambiguity would result because of a command
   that would affect the results of other commands.  Clients MUST NOT
   send multiple commands without waiting if an ambiguity would result.
   If the server detects a possible ambiguity, it MUST execute commands
   to completion in the order given by the client.

   The most obvious example of ambiguity is when a command would affect
   the results of another command; for example, a FETCH of a message's
   flags and a STORE of that same message's flags."

Regards,
-- martin

Dipl.-Phys. Martin Konold

e r f r a k o n
Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker
Nobelstrasse 15, 70569  Stuttgart, Germany
mobil: 0175 4148693
fax: 0175 13 4148693
email: martin.konold@erfrakon.de