Need more granularity for check-for-new-mail delay

NEW
Unassigned

Status

MailNews Core
Networking: IMAP
--
enhancement
14 years ago
9 years ago

People

(Reporter: 6e77a 70 6e 6e7a, Unassigned)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Reporter)

Description

14 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0 StumbleUpon/1.999
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041107 Firefox/1.0 StumbleUpon/1.999

IMAP server performs badly because of all folders get checked in one blast at
the end of the check-for-new-mail delay.  TB should either divide the delay by
the number of folders or provide a check-for-new-mail delay per folder.

TB should ultimately add a new feature to the folder-subscription screen. 
Besides the existing checkbox that subscribes to each folder, it should also
provide a checkbox to check that folder for new mail and a check-for-new-mail
delay.  The rationale is that TB doesn't need to check some folders as often as
others, and TB wouldn't be "out to lunch" when I want to read an important
message.  For example, TB should poll a "Likely Spam" folder less often than a
"Friends" folder.

Perhaps you could split this into two bugs.  One for an easier, short-term fix
that divides the delay by the folders, and another for a longer-term change to
the folder-subscription screen.


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
n/a
Actual Results:  
n/a

Expected Results:  
n/a
This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → EXPIRED
(Reporter)

Comment 3

13 years ago
Still hoping someone will implement this.
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: EXPIRED → ---
QA Contact: general

Comment 4

10 years ago
David, wontfix?  randomize?
6e77a doesn't state what precise conditions are a problem for the server.  
Assignee: mscott → bienvenu
Component: General → Networking: IMAP
Product: Thunderbird → Core
QA Contact: general → networking.imap
(Reporter)

Comment 5

10 years ago
Wayne, I don't understand what information you're looking for.

Comment 6

10 years ago
you say "IMAP server performs badly".  how do you know this?  how *exactly* is your server taking a performance hit?  what traffic is now occurring that's taxing the server that your suggestion would avoid?

Comment 7

10 years ago
Changing from "major" to "enhancement".  It might be worth changing the summary to something like "allow check-for-new-mail interval to be set per-folder" (I haven't checked to see if that would be a duplicate).

Regarding the short-term fix, I don't think that's a good idea -- let's say you have 120 folders with "check for new mail" set, with a 2-minute update.  Then it would theoretically need to start checking a folder every second, and have to track if it fell behind, or something like that.  Seems messy to me.
Severity: major → enhancement

Comment 8

10 years ago
the new imap auto sync stuff makes this somewhat less important, as it updates folder on idle, but no more frequently than the check for new mail interval. Assigning to nobody, though this might be wontfix.
Assignee: bienvenu → nobody
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
(Assignee)

Updated

10 years ago
Product: Core → MailNews Core
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.