On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 16:47 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 10:14 +0200, GÃbor Farkas wrote: > > hi,
> > when i create an imap account i have an option to: > > "Automatically synchronize remote mail locally". > > > > and also when i right click an imap folder, > > i have an option to: > > "Copy folder content locally for offline operation" > It means that messages will be copied to the local hard disk as they > arrive on the server. The old code used to just copy it when you > 'went offline', if it wasn't there already. unfortunately it does not seem to be like that. i tried the following approach: 1. i created a new imap account in evolution 2. i turned on the auto-sync-remote-mails in the imap account settings 3. i have an INBOX, and also several subdirectories. one of them is 'burn' 4. the INBOX was automatically updated (the number of new mails was shown), but not the subdirectories 5. i pressed the send/receive button. the number of unread mails was updated for all folders. 6. not that i did not went into any of the subdirs. 7. i stopped the network connection (/etc/init.d/net.eth0 stop) 8. i clicked on the 'burn' subdir. 9. evolution froze with a 'opening imap://blabla' in the status bar 10. i've killed evo because i did not want to wait (i assume there's a timeout...) so, it does not seem to sync it... :(( is this a bug? i am using gentoo linux... i've checked it, and gentoo only applies a small patch to 1.5.93, which adds libcamel.la to the list of libraries... (and i use your vertical-layout patch ;) ..btw. any chance of getting this accepted into evo?) so it seems i am using a pretty normal evo-1.5.93... > > > > is this possible to achieve with those offline-sync options in > > evolution? > > > because when in the past i tested some mail clients, they only fetched > > the mails > > when you chose to go offline. > > but that's not good enough. i don't want to have to do it manually, and > > also don't > > want to wait sooo looong while he fetches all my mail (offlineimap only > > transfersthe differences, so it's pretty fast). > See above. > > If you're using something that works, I suggest you just stick to > that. I would think offlineimap will be a lot faster at the actual > data transfer than Evolution. Evolution only transfers the new data > required too, but the actual transfer speed suffers a lot if you have > any latency in the link. latency is not really an issue here, because i am imap-fetching my mail always on broadband connections. (when i am on a gprs connection, i use the goodo old ssh + mutt combination ;) thanks a lot, gabor farkas _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
