Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>> If I understand Dovecot's auth caching, it will save DB lookups (or
>> sequential passwd-file lookups, etc), but it will still need to spawn
>> a new imap process for each connection the webmail does.
>>
>> With imap
On Aug 15, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
Timo Sirainen escreveu:
I've heard that imapproxy isn't all that useful with Dovecot once
auth cache is enabled and set large enough. It'll then just
basically replace Dovecot's process fork(s) with the overhead of
its own.
If I un
Timo Sirainen escreveu:
I've heard that imapproxy isn't all that useful with Dovecot once auth
cache is enabled and set large enough. It'll then just basically
replace Dovecot's process fork(s) with the overhead of its own.
If I understand Dovecot's auth caching, it will save DB lookups (or
s
On Thursday, August 14 at 07:01 AM, quoth Eric Toczek:
While it's not free, a really nice webmail that does a lot of smart
things (persistent imap connections, ldap connection pooling, and
one of the best interfaces I've seen) is Nitido's PIM
http://www.nitido.com/products/index.shtml?web_pim
Chris Wakelin wrote:
>
> Another persistent IMAP Webmail app may be Web-Alpine from UW, but I
> haven't tried it out yet. If it's expecting to be talking to UW-IMAP
> it'll need to use persistent connections!
>
While it's not free, a really nice webmail that does a lot of smart
things (persistent
On Aug 13, 2008, at 10:32 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Aug 14, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Sean Kamath wrote:
But the big killer is scaleability and handling multiple servers,
which is why some sort of front end like IMAPProxy are attractive.
I've heard that imapproxy isn't all that useful with Dovec
On Aug 14, 2008, at 1:26 AM, Sean Kamath wrote:
But the big killer is scaleability and handling multiple servers,
which is why some sort of front end like IMAPProxy are attractive.
I've heard that imapproxy isn't all that useful with Dovecot once auth
cache is enabled and set large enough.
On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 04:37:11PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
One thing that would be nice, that pretty much no webmail does,
is to
keep a stateful connection open all the time (or at l
Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 04:37:11PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
One thing that would be nice, that pretty much no webmail does, is to
keep a stateful connection open all the time (or at least some of the
time) instead of creating tons of short-liv
On Aug 13, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 04:37:11PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
One thing that would be nice, that pretty much no webmail does, is
to
keep a stateful connection open all the time (or at least some of
the
time) inste
Geert Hendrickx wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 04:37:11PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
One thing that would be nice, that pretty much no webmail does, is to
keep a stateful connection open all the time (or at least some of the
time) instead of creating tons of short-lived connections that ask
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 04:37:11PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> One thing that would be nice, that pretty much no webmail does, is to
> keep a stateful connection open all the time (or at least some of the
> time) instead of creating tons of short-lived connections that ask the
> same stuff over a
Brian Hayden wrote:
Have you investigated Prayer? That's what we use, in a modded version,
because it maintains persistent IMAP connections (among other reasons).
You could think of it as an IMAP client that happens to be using a web
browser to draw back to your screen, as if it were X Windows.
On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
One thing that would be nice, that pretty much no webmail does, is
to keep a stateful connection open all the time (or at least some
of the time) instead of creating tons of short-lived connections
that ask the same stuff over and ove
On Aug 13 2008, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
I've seen several messages on the list that seem to indicate some
clients don't maintain the connection. It will be interesting to see
what the implications of this. Not sure if it can be done from a HTTP
connection as it is suppose to be stateless
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
What I'm looking for is a good reference, besides the RFC, on IMAP.
Anything out there? Electronic or dead-tree is fine. (A book of
Dovecot would be neat too.)
I wrote this a while ago: http://imapwiki.org/ClientI
On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:05 PM, Roderick A. Anderson wrote:
What I'm looking for is a good reference, besides the RFC, on IMAP.
Anything out there? Electronic or dead-tree is fine. (A book of
Dovecot would be neat too.)
I wrote this a while ago: http://imapwiki.org/ClientImplementation
One t
17 matches
Mail list logo
