MBOX-Line: From jkt at flaska.net  Wed Sep  4 12:43:00 2013
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jan_Kundr=E1t?= <jkt@flaska.net>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:51 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Best way to support HTTP PUT based 'push'
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?notifications_from_IMAP=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <5225BF8C.7060602@mozilla.com>
References: <5225BF8C.7060602@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <a519769d-6db9-4422-a557-1c9c0fdce9ad@flaska.net>

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 12:53:00 CEST, Andrew Sutherland wrote:
> On devices that either have difficulty maintaining persistent 
> TCP connections or have power concerns about doing so, 
> maintaining an IMAP connection for IDLE/NOTIFY purposes is 
> undesirable and it would be great if the IMAP server could 
> generate a notification via other means.

I have heard this a couple of times, but there was never a pointer to an 
article quantifying these claims. I understand that something different 
than TCP (e.g. an incoming SMS) could have a very different impact on power 
consumption simply because it utilizes a different part of the radio, but 
this proposal is about replacing one TCP connection with another one. So, 
why do you expect that this change will reduce power consumption, and do 
you have any measurements or other data?

With kind regards,
Jan

-- 
Trojit?, a fast Qt IMAP e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/

