On 8/19/2013 4:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
may i suggest you read about how IMAP IDLE works?
Oh, well sure, if you hang your hat on IDLE then your arguments here might make sense. But because of the brain dead one socket per folder architecture of IDLE few have adopted it en masse. Which is why my comments ignored the existence of IDLE. And which is also why the creators of the RFC stated clients must not count on the existence of IDLE and must poll, which seems really odd. Many have, and still ask, why even have IDLE then if we must still poll?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2177
"(While the spec actually does allow a server to push EXISTS responses aysynchronously, a client can't expect this behaviour and must poll.)"
Given the option of potentially dozens of open sockets between his server and any client simply to allow IDLE to work for all folders, or one or two connections and strictly client polling, I'd guess most admins will choose the latter.
-- Stan