32 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
32 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
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/
|
|
|