[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again
From: |
valdis . kletnieks |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:26:37 -0400 |
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.
And making that robust under concurrent access sounds even worse...
(If this is already a solved problem, somebody whack me with a clue-by-four.. :)
pgpbwpJNjRCYd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- [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 <=
- 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
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/10/28