Ansgar Wiechers put forth on 3/3/2010 9:01 AM: > I was under the impression that his Postfix and Dovecot are running on > the same (remote) host, and he's using Postfix as a smarthost for his > outbound mail. If that's the case, then there certainly is an advantage, > as his client won't have to transfer the message twice. Otherwise you're > correct, of course.
The point I was making is that the BCC'd copy is dropped in his inbox. Thus, when he opens his MUA, he still has to download the BCC'd sent items and move them to his IMAP sent items folder. So there's no net gain in IMAP traffic reduction. I suppose it might be possible to hack together a solution in the MTA or IMAP server, manually dropping copies of sent messages in the user's IMAP Sent Items folder. That would be one heck of a kludge though. >> Just store the sent items in Local Folders/Sent Items. I do this and >> it works great. > > You're giving up the advanteges of IMAP, though. Life is full of imperfect choices. You can't have your cake and eat it too, etc, etc. >> My Dovecot server is local, 100BaseT, and it's still noticeably faster >> to store Sent Items locally on the workstation. > > Well, duh. Even old PATA/33 drives have almost three times the transfer > rate of 100BaseT. Transfer rate isn't the issue, but latency. Local disk writes are buffered, whereas network writes via IMAP are not. Thus, writing locally involves latency in nanoseconds because your MUA is writing to in-memory disk buffers. Over IMAP it's milliseconds due to TCP/IP stack and wire latency. The speed of the local disk is pretty much irrelevant these days for this scenario. -- Stan
