Re: [Evolution] Imap & Attachments
- From: Not Zed <notzed ximian com>
- To: guenther <guenther rudersport de>
- Cc: Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>, Axel Mueller <axel mueller iwe uni-karlsruhe de>, evolution lists ximian com
- Subject: Re: [Evolution] Imap & Attachments
- Date: 16 Jul 2003 13:33:03 +0930
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 03:24, guenther wrote:
AFAIK there is currently no way of not downloading attachments. However,
as the IMAP code is planned to be rewritten for 1.6, maybe this will
make it in the new code as an option?
Jeff, what do you think?
this feature is actually already implemented, however what is probably
happening is that the attachment parts are not tagged with an
appropriate Content-Type an so evo says "I have no idea what mime-type
this part is, so I better sniff it" and so in order to do that it has to
Well afaict (from when i was working on the display rewrite which i
really need to get into cvs soon) the code should only do this if the
attachment is already downloaded (i.e. local), otherwise it just treats
it as unknown ...
Its a different case if the disposition on the attachment is 'show
inline', its always downloaded in that case (and sniffed if required).
download the particular attachment. This should only be happening if the
Content-Type is application/octet-stream tho.
What I (and probably Axel) was thinking of would be an option, to never
load attachments, until I willingly requested so. (Then use the cache,
as currently, so I do not have to load it everytime I wanna see it.)
This would only cover attachments right? (e.g. not inline pics in html
We could just add a very trivial-to-implement 'dont show attachments
inline by default' option. Which is probably the crux of the issue.
anyways, for 1.6 we have some ideas on how to improve this. IMAP allows
us to only download a substream of the mime part, and so we plan on
doing this when we have to sniff (like maybe the first 1K or maybe less
- we could probably get away with just the first 100-200 bytes, so maybe
we'll only grab that much?)
Jeff, please put that into the draft for the rewrite. :-)
Well as above, imho we shouldn't be doing any sniffing up dark crevices
like that :)
But i want to do the subfetch thing anyway for other purposes (e.g.
better multiplex the server connection) which will probably make
sniffing a small bit implementable anyway.
the problem with this...is that with all the imap (and pop3 and smtp,
etc) server brokeness we've encountered, I'm a bit worried this will
cause people problems... *sigh*
my guess is that we'll implement it and if people report that their imap
servers suck (like they did with POP3 servers for the 1.4 release),
we'll just add a checkbox or something to work around the server
Yeah will be interesting to see how well its supported.
] [Thread Prev