Subject: Re: Please shoot this ridiculous idea down.

From: Rob Siemborski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:20:24 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

> 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.

Does this mean that the managesieve server now has to deal with all the
shared folders it wouldn't normally be filing into also?  How does this
interact with IMAP ACLs, which managesieve doesn't need to know about now?

Otherwise, you still need to hold open IMAP sessions on the shared folders
anyway.

-Rob

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rob Siemborski | Andrew Systems Group * Research Systems Programmer
PGP:0x5CE32FCC | Cyert Hall 207 * [email-masked] * 412.268.7456
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version: 3.12
GCS/IT/CM/PA d- s+: a-- C++++$ ULS++++$ P+++$ L+++(++++) E W+ N o? K-
w O- M-- V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+@ 5+++ R@ tv-@ b+ DI+++ G e++ h r- y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:22:03 +0100

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).

> -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

---

From: "Mark E. Mallett" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:27:47 -0500

On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 06:22:03PM +0100, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes.

I would say that's a problem looking for a solution (as opposed
to the other thing, which is a solution looking for a problem :-) )

> It seemed ridiculous, but also...

Ah.  I would just consider it to be the wrong place, even if one
did want a separate session to watch mailboxes and folders.
(One might bury that in this MUPDATE thing, for example.)

> sound out-of-scope to monitor what the sieve implementation is doing?

It does to me.  But I see your point.

mm

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:34:59 +0100

Rob Siemborski writes:
>>  connections open to watch for new mail in N mailboxes. Two is not 
>>  very large by that scale.
>
> Does this mean that the managesieve server now has to deal with all 
> the shared folders it wouldn't normally be filing into also?

Good point. Very good point.

Thank you to everyone.

> How does this interact with IMAP ACLs, which managesieve doesn't need 
> to know about now?

Well, it doesn't matter, but I'd say that if I can persuade sieve to 
write to a mailbox, it's okay for sieve to tell me.

--Arnt

---

From: Rob Siemborski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:39:10 -0500 (EST)

> write to a mailbox, it's okay for sieve to tell me.

MANAGESIEVE just parses the sieve script, it doesn't necessaraly ensure
that the sieve script can deliver to a particular mailbox.

-Rob

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version: 3.12
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

---

From: Rob Siemborski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:10:08 -0500 (EST)

> (One might bury that in this MUPDATE thing, for example.)

MUPDATE doesn't deal with anything on the per-message level.  Though, if
you wanted to be notified of mailbox creation/deletion, that would be much
closer to the problem that MUPDATE solves.

-Rob

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----
Version: 3.12
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----