MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi  Sat Mar 24 14:32:43 2012
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:48 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IDLE + inbox file
In-Reply-To: <20897.1332624350.275209@puncture>
References: <11E08CAD-B343-4845-9C33-1DA80AFD652E@psu.edu>
	<1234979693.29240.1770.camel@timo-desktop>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.0902181017110.34559@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<1234981810.29240.1785.camel@timo-desktop>
	<53E653CF-EDA4-4B4B-8B1E-E1EAF6C29B36@imap.cc>
	<alpine.OSX.2.00.0902181047070.34559@hsinghsing.panda.com>
	<A9124E0E-76A1-4853-AEC6-2F7D519754B7@mac.com>
	<F88F7C11-F69D-4A7D-9376-D050D4B0F97B@iki.fi>
	<20897.1332624350.275209@puncture>
Message-ID: <206DC161-B889-4D0F-A99D-657252229FF5@iki.fi>

On 24.3.2012, at 23.25, Dave Cridland wrote:

> On Sat Mar 24 00:48:38 2012, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> b) If you care about power usage, then IDLE isn't much better from polling, because in either case the device needs to wake up every n minutes to do some work and send some data
> 
> I believe that mobile networks are substantially better than that - normally well over 5 minutes these days.
> 
> Waking up the connection from the server every two minutes is bad for two reasons:

So, you're saying I should increase the default keepalive from 2 mins to 5 mins? I don't really know what is a good value, I think I just copied it from Mark.

> 1) It means client developers never figure out the right parameters.

Can client developers really do it much better? I guess desktop vs. mobile developers can do things differently if they wanted, but is it any more realistic for them than for server developers?

> 2) If client developers are controlling their keepalive traffic, they can coordinate it with other connections to minimize power impact.
> 
> The latter is especially important for protocols like IMAP where it's typical for a client MUA to have multiple sessions alive at the same time.

I think my previous mail pretty much solved this on the server side?
