On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Alan Knowles wrote: > I hacked away at the source, (could do with a few more comments, and > Message::bodyStructure() could do with breaking down to smaller parts..
True, refactoring would be nice, but for 1.3 of course. There are lots of things I'd like to do for 1.3. I'm glad that 1.2 works very well in the meantime, though. I wonder if you could show me the changes you did in a patch, so I can see exactly what was done. I'm looking into this right now. It may well be that Binc IMAP's BODY response contains too much data. > PS. Any ideas on the outlook issue? - the only one I could see quickly > was the comments about qmail and the 1 second rule on scanning /new/ - > but I dont think this would really be causing it.. No, I have a hunch it's got to do with a bug in Outlook with regards to the server timing out. You could do a couple of things to verify this. First, check if people see the problem on connections that are younger than 30 minutes. Then, try removing the timeout in the sources, or setting the timeout up to some very high value (several days). If it turns out to be the well-known Outlook bug, then you may want to keep the changes you made. They won't go into Binc IMAP, but you could run them yourself. The bug I know of is that Outlook doesn't detect that the server closes the connection after exactly 30 minutes, so it keeps sending commands to a dead connection. Once the connection is reestablished, the client syncs with the server and sees that all its "changes" have been "reverted". :-/ Andy :-) -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | "It is better not to do something http://www.bincimap.org/ | than to do it poorly."
