Subject: Netscape + IMAP Problem.

From: Simon Coggins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:17:26 +1000

Hi,
I've just joined the list so excuse me if this has been raised before. I
tried using the search engine on the message archive but it appears to be
broken (searching for 'imap' returns 0 results as do all other queries).

I have a problem where Netscape is trying to open multiple connections to
the IMAP server. If you your inbox it opens an imap connection, then if you
click on another folder (say saved-messages), it opens yet another IMAP
connection. The problem occurs when you copy a message from the inbox to the
saved-messages folder after the 2 imap sessions are open. I imap process is
looking at saved-messages and the other inbox. The inbox imap then tries to
open saved-messages (as your trying to move the message to that folder),
then the saved-messages imap connection gets killed (via USR2) as it's holding the
saved-messages file open. The result of this is that netscape is to stupid
to realise the connection has closed and when you clock back on
saved-messages the folder doesn't load because the imap connection has gone
away.

I know this is most defiantly a netscape problem, but surly someone else has
had the same problem. We are running imap-4.4, I've tried 4.7b but it has
the same problems and appears to be less than stable. Any help would be
appreciated.

Regards
Simon  

Network and System Management Officer
ITS
University of Wollongong
Wollongong, 2522
Phone: +61-2-4221-3775
Fax:   +61-2-4229-1985
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/imap/c-client-list.html
------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:34:52 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:17:26 +1000, Simon Coggins wrote:
> We are running imap-4.4, I've tried 4.7b but it has
> the same problems and appears to be less than stable.

Hello.

I am interested to find out why you consider 4.7b to be "less than stable".
It should be much better than 4.4.

-- Mark --