Hello,
On Tue 03 Mar 2020 at 03:43PM -05, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I'd be happy to entertain this mode of operation for imap-dl if someone
> wants to offer a robust patch for it with a very minimal footprint in
> terms of configuration complexity :)
>
> In general, i'm happy for imap-dl to
On Fri 2020-02-14 07:58:34 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>> Also, will imap-dl skip messages with the deleted flag? Do you think it
>>> should?
>>
>> I don't think it should -- the use case at the moment is just to fetch
>> all messages that exist in the inbox. Why should it treat any flag
>>
control: tag -1 +pending
Hello dkg,
On Fri 31 Jan 2020 at 05:43PM -05, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Thanks for the extensive review. I've revised imap-dl, taking it into
> account, and have attached the revised version here. You can also find
> it on my imap-dl-v2 branch on salsa.
Very nice.
Hello,
On Sat 08 Feb 2020 at 12:37PM -05, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I don't understand what sort of rebase you are asking for -- the
> imap-dl-v2 branch on https://salsa.debian.org/dkg/mailscripts.git is
> (and been) based directly atop the imap-dl-squashed branch, so it's
> accessible with
On Mon 2020-02-03 14:42:03 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Fri 31 Jan 2020 at 05:43PM -05, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the extensive review. I've revised imap-dl, taking it into
>> account, and have attached the revised version here. You can also find
>> it on my imap-dl-v2 branch
Hello dkg,
On Fri 31 Jan 2020 at 05:43PM -05, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Thanks for the extensive review. I've revised imap-dl, taking it into
> account, and have attached the revised version here. You can also find
> it on my imap-dl-v2 branch on salsa.
Please send a v3 patch, or rebase
Hi Sean--
Thanks for the extensive review. I've revised imap-dl, taking it into
account, and have attached the revised version here. You can also find
it on my imap-dl-v2 branch on salsa.
I've adopted all of the suggested revisions in pretty straightforward
ways except for the comments below.
Hello Daniel,
On Wed 22 Jan 2020 at 04:52PM -05, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> The attached git-formatted patch is also present on the imap-dl-squashed
> branch on https://salsa.debian.org/dkg/mailscripts. jrollins confirmed
> that it was OK, which is why it bears both of our signoffs.
Thanks
On Wed, Jan 22 2020, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Wed 22 Jan 2020 at 05:01PM -08, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jameson Graef Rollins
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor
>>
>> I confirm that I truly do sign off on this code, and fully support it's
>> inclusion in mailscripts.
Hello,
On Wed 22 Jan 2020 at 05:01PM -08, Jameson Graef Rollins wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Jameson Graef Rollins
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor
>
> I confirm that I truly do sign off on this code, and fully support it's
> inclusion in mailscripts.
Could you confirm that you certify the
On Wed, Jan 22 2020, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Hi Sean--
>
> On Fri 2020-01-17 09:26:38 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> I think the easiest thing to do would be for one of you to prepare a
>> single patch, signed off, and for the other to write an e-mail signing
>> it off. I'll then do a code
Hi Sean--
On Fri 2020-01-17 09:26:38 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I think the easiest thing to do would be for one of you to prepare a
> single patch, signed off, and for the other to write an e-mail signing
> it off. I'll then do a code review of the latest version of the script.
The attached
Hello dkg, jrollins,
On Mon 06 Jan 2020 at 06:38PM -05, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> It's now been three months, and the only changes i've made to imap-dl
> have been trivial ones:
>
> - accept that some IMAP daemons will lie about message sizes before
>download, offer workaround for users
On Sun 2019-10-06 14:18:16 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Sat 2019-10-05 10:21:05 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
>> As an alternative to adding the integration tests, how about you use
>> imap-dl on a daily basis for ~3 months with (I assume) a standard IMAP
>> server, and if you don't have
Hello,
On Sun 06 Oct 2019 at 02:18PM -04, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> i'm using imap-dl on a daily basis now, and will happily report back
> then too. the last changes i made were supplying more debugging details
> on october 2nd, so i suppose the new year is ~3 months if you want to
> start
control: tag -1 +moreinfo
Hello,
On Sat 05 Oct 2019 at 04:04PM -03, David Bremner wrote:
> FWIW I'm already using imap-dl daily, so I guess ask me in a few months
> if I noticed any problems.
Cool -- tagging moreinfo to reflect this.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sat 2019-10-05 10:21:05 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> As an alternative to adding the integration tests, how about you use
> imap-dl on a daily basis for ~3 months with (I assume) a standard IMAP
> server, and if you don't have to make any nontrivial changes to the
> script during that time, we
Sean Whitton writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun 29 Sep 2019 at 11:21AM +02, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
>> Do you think we need this to be done in order for mailscripts to adopt
>> imap-dl? that would make me kind of sad, though of course i can
>> continue to use imap-dl without its adoption by
Hello,
On Sun 29 Sep 2019 at 11:21AM +02, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Do you think we need this to be done in order for mailscripts to adopt
> imap-dl? that would make me kind of sad, though of course i can
> continue to use imap-dl without its adoption by mailscripts.
As an alternative to
Hi Sean--
Thanks for the review!
On Sat 2019-09-28 08:53:38 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> I read through the script and I'm a bit apprehensive about the
> complexity involved in talking to the IMAP server, because it renders
> imap-dl significantly more complicated than anything else in
>
Hello dkg,
On Tue 17 Sep 2019 at 09:31AM -04, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> getmail upstream appears to have no plans to convert to python3 in the
> near future.
>
> Some of us use only a minimal subset of features of getmail, and it
> would be nice to have something simpler, with the main
getmail upstream appears to have no plans to convert to python3 in the
near future.
Some of us use only a minimal subset of features of getmail, and it
would be nice to have something simpler, with the main complexity
offloaded to the modern python3 stdlib.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor
22 matches
Mail list logo
