Patrick Nagel put forth on 6/26/2010 2:08 AM: > The connections are used for IMAP IDLE [1], AFAIK. So the first five folders > (a.k.a mailboxes) you access(?) get "push mail" - the moment a new mail goes > in or out, Thunderbird knows about it. Why they chose the number five, I > don't > know. IMO it would be better, if you could choose explicitly, which folders > should be "push", and then TB would create as many connections as you have > set > folders to "push". > Or even better: IMAP NOTIFY [2] gets implemented in dovecot and in > Thunderbird, and one TCP connection suffices for an arbitrary amount of > "push" > folders :)
I'm no IMAP expert, but what you state here doesn't make any sense at all. With the exception of early FTP implementations, I've not seen any/many widely used protocols that require different/multiple sockets for different types of data or commands. This is the total opposite of efficiency. I just sent myself a test message from gmail and within a second of watching postfix smtpd fire the email showed in my inbox in TB. This shows that IDLE is working with only a single IMAP connection to Dovecot. I don't really have a way to test your "IDLE per folder per connection" theory as all my folders are list mail folders populated by a sieve script. When I send this I'll watch top and see if it hits immediately or has to wait the "check every 1 minute" setting in TB. > [1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2177.html > [2] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc5465.html RFCs are a huge PITA to read and digest. I may take a look if required, but for now I think this theory is malarky. No offense intended. Just calling it as I see it. -- Stan
