[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again
|
From: |
Kevin Cosgrove |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again |
|
Date: |
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 11:59:24 -0700 |
On 26 October 2017 at 14:22, Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> wrote:
> So, the most recent discussion about IMAP started me thinking ... how
> bad would a connection for every command really be?
[Much good info trimmed]
The imaptest is a really good step.
Yay! Thanks Ken.
--
Kevin
- [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again,
Kevin Cosgrove <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Bakul Shah, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, valdis . kletnieks, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Bakul Shah, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Paul Vixie, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Bakul Shah, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Paul Vixie, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Paul Vixie, 2017/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Paul Vixie, 2017/10/27