Re: [Evolution-hackers] CamelFolder updates
- From: Jamie Zawinski <jwz jwz org>
- To: evolution-hackers helixcode com
- Subject: Re: [Evolution-hackers] CamelFolder updates
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:52:22 -0700
> There are often other ways of identifing messages
> other than their index in an array (address of summary? checksum
> of headers?).
I used both of: message ID, and position of message in folder.
That gives good error checking: if message N has the ID you expect,
everything is fine; otherwise, you look it up by ID (and risk getting
a different copy of that message than you expected -- not a disaster.)
> I've said all along something as broken as pop should just movemail
> to an mbox (which is basically exactly what evolution mail has to do
> anyway, because otherwise it can't apply filters very easily).
I certainly hope there's not still any debate about this.
POP is a mail retrieval protocol. It is not a folder access protocol.
POP is like movemail, not like IMAP. I can't see how anyone who has
actually read the POP spec could think otherwise. POP's not a *broken*
folder access protocol -- it's not a folder access protocol at all!
jwz jwz org http://www.jwz.org/
jwz dnalounge com http://www.dnalounge.com/
] [Thread Prev