Re: Large spool mboxes => slow?

Randall Gellens wrote:

> 
> The patch looks useful.

I use it, along with my own modifications to it. I just posted some 
hasty updates attempting to encompass your suggestionss below.

http://www.jmaimon.com/qpopper
http://www.jmaimon.com/qpopper/patches/happymail-sleep-seconds.pl6.408.patch


> 
> The web page says it uses the [AUTH] response code.  A quick glance at 
> the patch shows it using either a [HAPPYMAIL] response code or no 
> response code.
> 
> Were these choices deliberate?
> 
> RFC 2449 and 3206 specify that [AUTH] indicates a problem specifically 
> with the user's credentials, and thus the client should prompt for a new 
> password.
> 

outlook express 6something prompts either way. This is the source of the 
real pain.

> The [LOGIN-DELAY] response code is specified to inform the client that 
> the login interval is too short.  So, I'd suggest that the patch include 
> the [LOGIN-DELAY] response code in its error message instead of 
> [HAPPYMAIL] (which is non-standard) or no response code.
> 

MoZt MAY respect this, initial eyeball test looked encouraging.

> Also, I think it would be very friendly (and way cool) for the patch to 
> include the LOGIN-DELAY response to the CAPA command.  In authenticated 
> state it can include the specific login-delay that will be enforced for 
> the user.

I read rfc2449 as stating the unauthenticated CAPA should append USER, 
which I have done.

> 
> You can also set the LOGIN-DELAY response to CAPA using the 
> announce-login-delay option.

But qpopper doesnt support enforcing it, correct? Still its an overlap 
in design between it and the patch.