Re: Three kinds of IMAP extensions

What we mean here, essentially, is that having one limit at server side is better than having the different clients having different limits.

The motive is pretty simple and clear. We want to have a limit that can act like a guideline for the client, so that the client get rid of try-and-fail.

We understand that this might not be a very regular thing, but it might not be a rare thing either.

Thanks & Regards
- Naren


-----Original Message-----
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 3:53 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [imapext] Three kinds of IMAP extensions

Jayantheesh S B writes:
> [Jay] I feel that having a client side prevention check is not a 
> better solution. It's not just about the mobile device's resources, 
> here we are considering the server side resources too.

So you mean that APPENDing one large .zip file containing ten .mp3 files consumes more server resources than ten messages, each with one .mp3 file, and that the difference matters? That seems strange, can you elaborate?

Arnt


_______________________________________________
imapext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imapext