From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9497
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Steinar Bang <sb@metis.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: nnimap.el is available for way-alpha testing.
Date: 21 Jan 1997 12:12:45 +0100
Sender: sb@norne.metis.no
Message-ID: <whg1zvwac2.fsf@norne.metis.no>
References: <vpdbuaj31n3.fsf@naiad.fac.cs.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.93)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149514 18838 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:31:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:31:54 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <ding-request@ifi.uio.no>
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
          by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP
	  id DAA07402 for <steve@miranova.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 03:31:05 -0800
Original-Received: from gw.metis.no (abel.metis.no [193.90.64.1]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <MAA08369@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:13:20 +0100
Original-Received: by gw.metis.no (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA01999; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:12:47 +0100 (MET)
Original-Received: by mailhub.metis.no (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id MAA17232; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:12:46 +0100 (MET)
Original-Received: by norne.metis.no (8.8.4/8.8.4) id MAA17866; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:12:46 +0100 (MET)
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: visigoth@naiad.fac.cs.cmu.edu's message of 21 Jan 1997 02:53:19 -0500
Original-Lines: 17
X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.80/Emacs 19.34
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9497
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9497

>>>>> visigoth@naiad.fac.cs.cmu.edu:

> I've got nnimap.el and imap4rev1.el up for ftp from:
> ftp://olivier.pc.cs.cmu.edu/pub/

> Please take a look and give me your comments.

> Some notes:
[snip!]

> * I'm gonna be asking Lars for some new optional backend calls that should
>   make this implementation a lot more optimal.  (Hi Lars!)  At the
>   moment, it's handicapped greatly by being pushed into the NNTP
>   framework.  This is not helped by the fact that IMAP isn't optimal
>   for large numbers of folders.

Hmm... what does "not optimal" entail...?