Mark E. Mallett writes:
and shouldn't be treated that way, certainly not by wedging it into
what amounts to a glorified file transfer protocol.
Not to mention the implication that you'd double the
connection/process load on a mailbox server (keeping an IMAP session
and a Manage session open).
Well, people have ernestly said that it's good to keep N IMAP
connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. Two is not very
large by that scale.
-mm- (still trying to decide if the original post was serious.)
Not serious, no - that overloading is too repulsive for me to be serious
about. But also not joking. Wondering why I couldn't dismiss the idea.
It seemed ridiculous, but also...
Consider this question: If a client wishes to "manage sieve", does it
sound out-of-scope to monitor what the sieve implementation is doing?
You see what I mean. Repulsive overloading, but I can't quite dismiss it.
--Arnt