OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: pop-before-smtp (was Re: FreeInet and checking mail?)
From: Greg A. Woods (woodsweird.com)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2000 - 12:14:20 CDT

[ On Thursday, June 8, 2000 at 02:18:41 (+0200), Brad Knowles wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: pop-before-smtp (was Re: FreeInet and checking mail?)
>
> > Yes, having IMAP means taking up more resources, but this is not necesarily
> > bad. It depends on what you want to do with it and what you want your users
> > to do with it.
>
> No, I pretty much consider this to be necessarily bad. Being
> able to handle certain additional features is nice, but when I have
> to throw ten or a hundred times as much hardware at the problem to
> have those additional features, well it just makes me want to puke.

Brad you're either not thinking straight, or you're exaggerating wildly.

I'd be extremely surprised if the factor was more than 2. By my
caclulations it should be more like 1.5 at the *most*. If you take into
account the subsequent lack of need for full deployment of SSL and SMTP
AUTH on all the outbound mail servers the factor may in fact be very
near 1.0.

If you honestly think an order of magnitude or more hardware would be
required then I would suggest you've missed some important aspect of the
solution I've suggested.

Now if you're comparing full deployment of IMAP4 vs. basic deployment of
POP3, then yes, there's an implied increase in resources due to the
nature of IMAP4 of course. In either case though the additional
resources required to handle message submission on the mailbox server is
still very low (i.e. <= 1.5 in my estimation). 

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoodsacm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woodsplanix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woodsweird.com>