[In a message on Mon, 08 Jul 2002 15:03:37 CDT,
the pithy ruminations of "Earl Hood" were:]
>On July 8, 2002 at 18:13, Christophe Prevotaux wrote:
>
>> > That's more of a protocol issue. It's not easy to do that within the
>> > context of POP. It _is_ possible just to get the headers within POP
>> > .... and I suppose inc could be changed to just retrieve the headers and
>> > make some sort of decision about whether to download the whole message
>> > or just delete it. But _that_ work would be complex. Feel free
>> > to send patches :-)
>...
>If integrated into inc, rmm, et.al., it requires some work to make
>it seamless to the user. For example, when doing an inc (with some
>new download only headers when using POP), nmh will have to mark
>messages that only has header data, properly via some marker at the
>beginning of a message file.
>
>If show is used, nmh would have to download the message from the
>POP server "on-the-fly". This could be a performance issue, requiring
>some kind of status to the user.
>
>With rmm, you have a similiar kind of situtation. Some kind of
>queuing could be done for rmm so POP commands are only done during
>the next message retrieval from the server or when some explicit
>flush operation is invoked.
I have to admit, I kinda like the idea of integrating pop a little
more "seamlessly" into nhm. scan, inc, show and rmm could all be made
to work "reasonably" well with POP/IMAP. OK, yeah, there's the huge
startup times compared to what we're used to, but there are time I
want to be able to "peek" into a remote mailbox and twiddle it without
downloading all of it (yes, I can use other apps, but I don't want
to).
As for patches. . . Well, someday.
Sean
