Re: nnimap backend performances ?

[Peter Davis <pfd@pfdstudio.com>]

Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:

> Peter Davis <pfd@pfdstudio.com> writes:
>
>> Xavier Maillard <lists.emacs.gnus@xavier.maillard.im> writes:
>>
>>> Eric Abrahamsen <eric@ericabrahamsen.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> Xavier Maillard <lists.emacs.gnus@xavier.maillard.im> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Currently I am fetching my incoming mails using a fantastic tool:
>>>>> offlineimap. Mails are then deserved by a local imap server (dovecot) on which
>>>>> Gnus is connected. So far so good.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I can remeber, I do this from the age of stone principally because,
>>>>> nnimap was considered pretty slow and also because I was nomade and it was
>>>>> comfortable to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Today, is it considered harmful to fetch my mail in "direct connect" to my
>>>>> remote imap server ?
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that the nnimap backend was re-written quite
>>>> significantly two or three years ago (?). At any rate, the people who
>>>> used the first iteration and were horrified now seem mostly happy with
>>>> the new version, YMMV. I used to use isync and local dovecot, now use
>>>> the direct connection, and it doesn't kill me. It isn't great (I'm in
>>>> China), but it doesn't kill me.
>>>
>>> Understand. SO this is definetely something I should test again and
>>> reconsider.
>>
>> I never got back to this, but I'm curious. I'm running Gnus 5.13. Does that mean I've got the re-written NNIMAP back end?
>
> It looks like the big re-write happened in Sep 2010, so earlier than I
> thought, but there was also a pile of significant improvements in 2012
> or thereabouts.
>
> I don't actually know what version 5.13 signifies. Wikipedia says it was
> bundled with Emacs 23.1 in 2009, but "wrapped up in early 2012 with
> version 0.19". Do you have a minor version number, or some other way to
> actually date the code?

Not that I'm aware of, though I'd be happy to be corrected. I don't even see an nnimap.el or .elc on this machine, though it's certainly
working.

Thanks,
-pd