[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again
From: |
Bakul Shah |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:57:03 -0700 |
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:26:37 -0400 address@hidden wrote:
address@hidden writes:
>
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:18:05 -0700, Bakul Shah said:
>
> > The trickier aspect, and the real issue for me, is proper
> > synchronization when email is accessed from multiple machines,
> > and which may not be connected all the time. On reconnection
> > a client has to upload its changes and resync its local cache
> > with the imap server so that changes made elsewhere are
> > properly reflected.
>
> AIUI, the big issue has always been that nmh has expected message numbers
> to remain static until explicitly changed (i.e. message 35 *stays* message 35
> until 'folder -pack' or something changes it), while IMAP message numbers
> can change even during a connection, so UUID's need to be used instead,
> which means keeping a message<->uuid mapping someplace.
Indeed. Keeping such mapping is what I planned to do. folder
-pack only changes the local msgID<->UID map so no need to
talk to the server for that. But as UIDs are assigned by the
imap server, after a refile there will be messages with no UID
(at least temporarily).
I should really clean up my design notes and post them here...
> And making that robust under concurrent access sounds even worse...
Luckily this is taken care of by various imap extensions as
the problem exists even for "pure" imap clients. But I have a
feeling we will discover more corner cases + imap server
implementations that don't quite do the right thing.
- [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Kevin Cosgrove, 2017/10/26
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/10/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/28