On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 09:51, Mark Crispin wrote: > On 28 Jan 2003 09:50:53 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > With stateful firewalls or NATs each connection would require at least > > some memory and CPU. I didn't mean they'd necessarily cost much, but > > they're not free either. > > I do not believe that people should architect protocols or software > implementations to compensate for the limitations of firewalls and NATs.
Me neither. My only point was that using STATUS to constantly check for new mails in multiple mailboxes is less resource (cpu, memory, network) intensive than using multiple connections with some server implementations.
