Re: Do we need some meeting time?
Mark Crispin <mrc <at> cac.washington.edu>
2006-09-08 15:24:54 GMT
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Sure, it probably works fine over a LAN even with medium or large mailboxes.
> I wouldn't want to consider using THREAD on a 30k message mailbox over a
> mobile link, though, especially if I wanted to re-thread with every new
> message. Even generously assuming 5 octets per message, that's 150k of data
> for each THREAD response, which is, to me, a truly frightening amount.
You haven't seen what some mobile clients do if 150K of THREAD results
frightens you for a 30Kmessage mailbox. It gives you an entirely new
sense of perspective.
I keep on hearing people talk about threading 30Kmessage mailboxes over
mobile links, when most of the mobile clients that I have tried keel over
when presented with a 100 message mailbox. Last night, I tried a newly
released IMAP client on my cell phone. It doesn't thread at all, and only
presents 5 messages at a time starting at the tail of the mailbox.
If we talk about a more competant client... I used Pine quite a bit while
I was on vacation in Alaska and the Yukon. On the rare occasions when I
did not have Wi-Fi access (or they charged for it), I used GPRS. Even
with GPRS and a mass of newly-delivered spam, threading was not a problem.
It took more bandwidth to execute the anti-spam filters (I'd rather
execute the spammers, but that's another story...).
With Wi-Fi, I never notice THREAD bandwidth. 150K is less than a second.
What's more, Wi-Fi is popping up in surprising areas.
Of course, in large cities such as Seattle, Wi-Fi (including public access
free Wi-Fi) is ubiquitous. But even in remote areas of Alaska and the