On Mon, 15 Sep 2008, Kenneth Marshall might have said: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 04:50:38PM -0500, Mike Eggleston wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Kenneth Marshall might have said: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 01:34:24PM -0400, Wesley Craig wrote: > > > > On 29 Aug 2008, at 10:13, Kenneth Marshall wrote: > > > >> We tried many IDLE options here, but so many clients had poor IDLE > > > >> support that we ended up turning it off. The number of help desk > > > >> calls such as the one above dropped essentially to zero after the > > > >> change. > > > > > > > > I wonder if you have some practical experience to share, e.g., which > > > > clients & versions have poor IDLE support? > > > > > > > > :wes > > > > > > > Outlook/Outlook Express drove the change for us. They would open > > > multiple IMAP connections (sent folder, deleted folder, INBOX, ...) > > > but the only folder for which they would issue the IDLE command for > > > properly was the INBOX. From the behavior of other clients, many > > > had the same issue. Apparently Outlook counted on the IDLE for the > > > INBOX counting for all additional IMAP connections to the same > > > server. > > > > > > Ken > > > > I turned idled back on this morning as the user says she is still missing > > emails. This particular user has hundreds of folders and hundreds of > > sieve rules to automatically file messages into these folders (co-worker > > messages go into co-worker folders and she wants to be notified (unread > > count) that there's a message in a co-worker's folder, etc.). Is there > > a setting on sieve I need to tune? > > > > Mike > > > Sieve is not even part of the imap spec and does not have an effect on > IDLE handling by the client. It sounds like a worst-case scenario where > unusual mail handling process meets poor IDLE implementation. There is > nothing tuneable on the sieve side. If the client were implementing the > spec correctly then it would be getting notified when you have IDLE enabled, > but like I said above, those clients are few and far between. Let me know > if you figure something out that can handle this situation. The only thing > that I can think of is to have the sieve rules deliver to both the INBOX > and the specific folder and then only monitor the INBOX for new mail. I > suspect that would require changes to the workflow that may not be acceptable. > > Cheers, > Ken > Thanks for your thoughts. Seems odd that Outlook and Mac Mail would both not follow the spec. I think this user's approach is inefficient and all mail should be delivered to the INBOX and worked/filed/deleted from there. Oh well, It's not my place to say. Mike ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
