On Friday, 10 August 2007 at 11:26, Gary Funck wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:18:54AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > > > > it sounds a bit rube goldbergian to introduce a proxy that talks IMAP > > on one end and IMAP on the other. > > Perhaps so. Then again, some e-mail clients don't implement > IMAP support well, and Imapproxy caches the connection-related > data. We used it to allow external access to an internal > IMAP server (with proper authentication) and it did a good job.
I hope this doesn't apply to mutt. Recent versions especially have been pretty aggressive about minimizing round trips and useless information requests, especially with header and body caching enabled.
