On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 09:00 +0200, Paul J Stevens wrote: > Jonathan Feally wrote: > > Just to be clear - are you taking the headers of the mime part and > > keeping them seperate of the body of said part? My original post to keep > > them seperate was to allow for the attached file be renamed but not > > create duplicates, and also some mail clients may create the headers of > > the mime part slightly different when taking the file and re-attaching > > it into a new message. > > My current setup keeps the mime headers together with the content. But > I've been thinking about it a little, and storing the actual content > separate from the headers is much better. Doing that done-right would > also mean recursing into the message/rfc822 attachments. That would > require some serious rethinking of the schema.
I think we basically have to do this. Also, let's read over the latest IMAP CATENATE drafts to make sure that we're ready for it. Basically, the purpose of that extension is to assemble messages on the server from pre-existing parts of other messages. The use case that really drives the point home about having all the parts of messages on the server and not downloading anything is a mobile graphics editor who receives a gigantic attachment, and has to forward it -- using their mobile phone to direct the server to assemble a new message using the attachments from an existing message. Aaron _______________________________________________ DBmail mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
