Re: nnimap backend performances ?

[Peter Davis <pfd@pfdstudio.com>]

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?

Thanks!
-pd