[RCD] Possible performance improvement (UNSEEN)?

A.L.E.C alec at alec.pl
Mon Jun 14 14:41:53 CEST 2010


On 14.06.2010 14:27, Albert Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:56:25 +0200, "A.L.E.C"<alec at alec.pl>  wrote:

>>               The message sequence number of the first unseen
>>               message in the mailbox.  If this is missing, the
>>               client can not make any assumptions about the first
>>               unseen message in the mailbox, and needs to issue a
>>               SEARCH command if it wants to find it.
>>
>> So, I'm just thinking loud. Can we assume that there are no unseen
>> messages in the mailbox when server doesn't include UNSEEN in the
>> response? This is true for dovecot, how about others? We could skip one
>> SEARCH call.
>
> Directly contradicting the RFC? ;)

For me, RFC is not clear here. It says about the first unseen message, 
not about any unseen message.

> What about STATUS ... (UNSEEN)?

"STATUS command SHOULD NOT be used on the currently selected mailbox".
and
"Because the STATUS command is not guaranteed to be fast
in its results, clients SHOULD NOT expect to be able to
issue many consecutive STATUS commands and obtain
reasonable performance".

So, STATUS cannot be used in all situations, but I'll take a look on 
this too.

-- 
Aleksander 'A.L.E.C' Machniak http://alec.pl gg:2275252
LAN Management System Developer http://lms.org.pl
Roundcube Webmail Developer http://roundcube.net
_______________________________________________
List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/



More information about the Dev mailing list