On 06/27/2010 06:04 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Regardless, my point is valid and stands: there is no (good) reason > for the > protocol to require multiple socket connections when everything can be > accomplished more efficiently (in terms of resources consumed) over a single > socket. I'm sure many people more qualified than me have pointed this out WRT > the IMAP protocol over the years. >
Tomas is right. It's only possible to monitor one folder via IDLE per IMAP connection. It's stupid and inefficient, but that's how IMAP IDLE was designed. Fortunately, there's the NOTIFY extension to overcome that limitation. But it's not supported in all clients (nor in all servers, I'd guess). -- A visit to a strange place will bring fresh work. Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br
