Webmail application that doesn't abuse the IMAP server?

[Ted Fines]

> I'm not sure how the httpd processes are being tied up, but "tied up"
> imapds that are otherwise idle don't cost you anything except some swap
> and a process table entry.  They're basicly free.

Unless the imap connection has a mailbox open.  That ties up a potentially 
very large memory resource (depending on the size of the mailbox) on the 
server.

I have to say I don't know for certain whether that's true for the cyrus 
imapd, but for other imapds I've used, that has been the case.  Someone 
know for sure?

Ted Fines

--On Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:03 AM -0400 Rob Siemborski 
<rjs3 at andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Gary Mills wrote:
>
>> We do use that, and it probably does improve performance.  It does have
>> a problem with idle browser connections that accumulate with time.
>> This also ties up a lot of `imapd' and `httpd' processes.  It probably
>> needs a client timeout someplace.  I haven't had time to investigate
>> further.
>
> I'm not sure how the httpd processes are being tied up, but "tied up"
> imapds that are otherwise idle don't cost you anything except some swap
> and a process table entry.  They're basicly free.
>
> -Rob
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Rob Siemborski * Andrew Systems Group * Cyert Hall 207 * 412-268-7456
> Research Systems Programmer * /usr/contributed Gatekeeper
>