"Chris Garrigues" writes:
: --==_Exmh_-118578032P
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
:
: > From: Iain MacDonnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 20:39:19 +0100
: >
: > Jerry Peek writes:
: > : On 8 September 2000 at 20:05, Iain MacDonnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
: > rote:
: > : > I'm just saying that an
: > : > IMAP imeplementation could ignore sequences except for "unseen".
: > :
: > : I haven't thought a lot about internals here... but couldn't an IMAP
: > : implementation just store its sequences in the context file (by
: > : default, ~/Mail/context)? This is what commands like "mark -nopublic"
: > : do. All nmh commands can access these sequences.
: >
: > Does IMAP actually have any concept of sequences, though? I thought that was
: > left up to the client... time to get out that RFC :)
:
: I think that's why Jerry was suggesting to put them there. nmh *is* the
: client in this case.
I missed the middle of this thread, due to being too busy with other things.
It sounds like my idea of IMAP support in nmh doesn't completely coincide
with everyone else's; I had envisaged an IMAP server which would implement
the nmh commands as an interface to the "message store", but the client side
would be left open to "anything that supports IMAP". That would enable me to
use, say, Netscape Messenger, when I'm away from the office, and exmh when
I'm not.
I future step could be to implement IMAP in exmh, which could make
support for sequences more pertinent, but raises raises another concern;
how would sequences be handled when talking to an IMAP server that
wasn't our "nmh-ified" one? Wouldn't it be more correct to just stick to the
IMAP standard?
Just thinking out loud *flame-guards up:)*
~Iain
