Outlook 2002 vs. Cyrus 2.1.12

[Hasso Meyer-Jordan]

Hi Ken, Per!

> I just did some testing myself with Outlook 2000 and Outlook Express 6. 
> I couldn't get either client to hang after doing APPENDs (with IDLE
> enabled).  OE does close the connection after calling IDLE after the
> final APPEND however.
> 
> I'm not convinced that this is a server issue.  I'd like to see what
> happens against a different server that supports IDLE (eg, UW IMAP).


I've read about Outlook gets into trouble with IMAP servers which sends answers 
too fast (OE shouldn't be so sensitive [becausae it's another development]):

microsoft.public.outlook.interop
Outlook 2002 IMAP problems; Jan. 2003 follow-up

Link (long format, sorry):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&threadm=9d9fd1c2.0301201252.33081226%40posting.google.com&rnum=7&prev=/groups%
3Fq%3Dcyrus%2Bimap%2Bidle%2Boutlook%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-
8%26selm%3D9d9fd1c2.0301201252.33081226%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D7

Perhaps this could be another cause!?


> > > > The obvious difference here is that Cyrus 2.1 supports the IDLE
> > > > extension and Outlook is using it.  I'm not sure why the client
> > > > would be
> > > > IDLEing in between APPENDs, but I've grown accustomed to seeing silly
> > > > behavior from Outlook and Netscape.  What method for IDLE did you
> > > > configure with? (doing a 'version' command in cyradm will tell us
> > > > everything we need).  You might want to try reconfiguring/recompiling
> > > > Cyrus using --with-idle=no and see if this makes a difference.
> > > >
> > > > Ken


By the way:
B Leiba, the developer/issuer of IDLE RFC 2177, somewhere had described that 
Outlook and OE makes heavily usage of IDLE command between almost every 
conventional operation. He said "it makes no sense" ... "but anyway it's fully 
RFC conform".

(I wouldn't be surprised about brain-dead Microsoft developers! ;-)))  
Perhaps badly payed immigrants of India [like unskilled worker]. )

Cheers, Hasso