Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:10674 comp.sys.next:5556 comp.sys.mac:51251 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!bionet!turbo.bio.net!lear From: lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Consider IMAP instead of POP Message-ID: Date: 24 Mar 90 01:05:19 GMT References: <6344@blake.acs.washington.edu> Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology Lines: 12 To: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU In IMAP, you've advertised as as a feature great server search facilities, and the fact that the server protects the client from as much state as possible. It would seem to me that such an approach would produce a bottleneck of server resources far faster than POP would. In a large scale arena such as SUMEX, would it not be better to design a protocol where you assume that the free cycles will be on MANY client machines, rather than a few servers? I suppose taken to extremes I should stick to FTP, but I would see where both POP and IMAP (and FTP) have their places... -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]