RE: [Evolution] options on download

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Stedfast [mailto:fejj helixcode com]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 8:22 PM
To: Gregory Leblanc; evolution helixcode com
Subject: RE: [Evolution] options on download


[comments below]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 20:01:50 -0700 
To: evolution helixcode com
From: Gregory Leblanc <GLeblanc cu-portland edu>
Subject: RE: [Evolution] options on download

ok, the simplest way, in this case, is not the right way.  
The message
headers and bodies should be downloaded first, regardless 
of anything
Any binary attachments should be downloaded after all of 
the header and
plain-text mime portions are downloaded.  That way, I can 
read ALL of my
mail, from oldest to newest, and not have the silly 
scheduling problem
you mentioned above.  

do you even have the foggiest idea how POP works?

As a matter of fact, NO, I don't.  I just LIVE in my mail client, and
occasionally have to use it over a slow dialup line.

This is 
possible to do in
IMAP, but not POP
in POP, you either download the header (completely useless if 
you want to
read an email) or you download the entire message, there is no way to
download ONLY the text section of the message, this just isn't doable

the only (efficient/practical) way to do it would be the 
method I described

For POP.  Why does the implementation need to be the same for all providers?
That implementation makes it totally pointless to have, so I agree that
nobody should bother.  

no need to grab a header and no need to check for mime attachments

Without doing those, you don't know how to download things, 
and get into
scheduling messes.  

scheduling messes? HUH!?!?

Yeah, where you download the mail in order of size, that's stupid.  That's
sheduling, because you're not downloading by date.   Don't look at it for
POP if it can't be done there, but why not do it for IMAP, where it's
actually possible?  

if anyone feels up to patching 
/evolution/camel/providers/pop3, feel free
but I don't think anyone here has any intent on implementing 
that feature

No, not going to volunteer personally, nobody likes Pascal.  8^)

I dunno, I thought Pascal was kinda neat back in 11th grade :-)
Then I found C...but that's beside the point

Funny thing, that's when I gave up programming.  :-)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]