Re: [Evolution] IMAP rewrite

[Timo Sirainen <tss iki fi>]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:35, Not Zed wrote:
> I wrote a ton of code, but didn't quite get to the implementing a folder
> stage, close though. 

Can I see it?

> > - Send the flag changes to the server immediately. I think it now waits
> > until closing the folder. Also keep the flags synced with the server all
> > the time, if I change them elsewhere I expect Evolution to update them
> > internally as well.
>
> They are two different problems.  Evolution ignores unsolicited FETCH
> responses, so flags chagned elsewhere aren't updated.  Updating flags
> immediately will need more work than just "updating them immediately",
> so that multiple flag changes (which are done one at a time via the api)
> aren't done one at a time via the connection (== very slow).

I was thinking the flag changes could be stored somewhere and synced to
server once in a few seconds.

> > - Labels should be sent to server using custom message flags, assuming
> > the server supports them.
>
> This is part of the mailer, not the imap code.  It has to work with all
> backends too (which it should already anyway, including IMAP i think).

Looks like it's notified to camel with set/get_message_user_tag("label",
"..."), so it would be possible by mapping that with custom flags for
servers that do support them ("\*" in PERMANENTFLAGS).

I'd also rather not depend on Evolution to keep those flags. They would
be important to me so I'd have to keep backups of ~/evolution too, which
is in different computer than my other mail. Also I might still want to
find messages with those flags when I'm not home (where my Evolution is
running).

Currently I'm just leaving messages unseen which I need to deal with
later, labels would be nicer.

> It would
> probably be easiest to do something like it is now, and maybe add a
> thread or something that handles unsolicited incoming data.

Yes, I was thinking of reading and handling the incoming data in
separate thread. Most untagged replies would also be handled
independently on what command (if any) triggered them.

I think the camel-caller thread should just put the command it wants
into some queue and just wait for the connection thread to finish with
it.

> What IMAP server are you using anyway?  The ones I test against are
> pretty limited and dont really suffer a lot from evolution's poor IMAP
> implementation (e.g. they dont do responses without requests, etc).

My own, http://dovecot.procontrol.fi/