MBOX-Line: From mrc+imap at panda.com  Mon Jun  6 11:27:19 2011
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Mark Crispin <mrc+imap@panda.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:46 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Where to start?
In-Reply-To: <4DED0EDA.3030303@BusCom.net>
References: <4DEBB242.2090200@BusCom.net>
	<201106051924.p55JOwpG003543@mxout12.cac.washington.edu>
	<4DEBDFF5.9000301@BusCom.net>
	<4DEC1C93.24755.853F5AE5@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>
	<4DEC5CC4.5010507@BusCom.net>
	<201106060837.2YFKV00@c.mx.BCN-servers.us>
	<4DED0EDA.3030303@BusCom.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.00.1106061049440.809@hsinghsing.panda.com>

On Mon, 6 Jun 2011, Lynn W. Taylor wrote:
> Testing with Pine makes an incredible amount of sense.

Don't make the mistake of assuming "it only affects Pine, so it isn't
important or it must be a bug in Pine."

Pine is like a C compiler that spews hundreds of errors for the tiniest
infraction, compared to those that issue a warning that quickly scrolls
off the screen and is ignored because an object file was still generated
(only problem is, the object file is bad code).

> One of the things pushing IMAP is mobile.

You're in for some fun and laughter.

For mobile, you generally want push type update strategies, whereas IMAP
is fundamentally pull.  The problem is that push is a disaster if there's
a NAT between the client and the server (and there usually is).  Most NATs
assume that all protocols are pull.

Guess what happen when you try to serve two masters with opposite demands.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

