Eduardo M KALINOWSKI put forth on 6/27/2010 6:22 AM: > On 06/27/2010 06:04 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Regardless, my point is valid and stands: there is no (good) reason >> for the >> protocol to require multiple socket connections when everything can be >> accomplished more efficiently (in terms of resources consumed) over a single >> socket. I'm sure many people more qualified than me have pointed this out >> WRT >> the IMAP protocol over the years. >> > > Tomas is right. It's only possible to monitor one folder via IDLE per > IMAP connection. It's stupid and inefficient, but that's how IMAP IDLE > was designed. > > Fortunately, there's the NOTIFY extension to overcome that limitation. > But it's not supported in all clients (nor in all servers, I'd guess).
Thankfully none of this is actually _required_ to get timely new mail notification. Polling isn't efficient either but at least it only requires one socket connection. -- Stan
