Re: [Evolution] options on download

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj helixcode com>]

As Jamie stated earlier, UIDL is broken on a lot of POP providers
It's not even reasonable to depend on UIDL when available, because there
are at least a few POP providers that re-generate a UID (against the spec,
unfortunaly) for each message for each session (assuming messages have been
deleted).

I have seen UIDL implementations that say the UID of message 1 is "1" and
the UID of message 2 is "2"

that's not very useful :-)

It's possible to match headers, and I'm guessing that's the only way it can
truly be done - I'm waiting for a response from Jamie about that

Jeff

On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, Ray Lee wrote:
> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:22:49 -0700
> To: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj helixcode com>
> From: Ray Lee <ray madrabbit org>
> Subject: Re: [Evolution] options on download
>
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 01:56:23PM -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > you'd have to download the entire message again (because you can't
> start
> > where you left off),
>
> Since you only downloaded the first 10 (100, whatever) lines in the first
> place, this is no big duplication of bandwidth. At this point, the user
> is already expecting a wait, so no big deal.
>
> > this begins to get overly complicated because what if
> > the user has it set to delete messages off the pop server
> > after they download? then what?
>
> Easy, you wouldn't have deleted the message in the first place, therefore
> it's still there to download again. Through the miracle of UIDL, you'd
> even
> be able to identify it again without going through any header matchup.
> (Though UIDL seems to be only spottily supported, from what I've seen.
> Header matchup wouldn't be that much harder to do, and has the added
> benefit
> of not needing to store any extra state other than the fact that this was
> a partial message in the first place.)
>
> > you can't just go get the rest of the message...because it isn't there
> > argh!
>
> <shrug> Well, if you don't want to implement it, then I'm sure someone
> will respectfully submit a patch for it. FWIW, this is a common mode for
> home users to run in, in my experience.
>
> Hoping this clarifies things a tad,
>
> Ray
> --
> rblee impulse net ~ ray madrabbit org
-- 
Spruce: because "User Friendly" is for wusses