On Oct 24, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Joel Uckelman <[email protected]> wrote:
> I looked this over a bit and wasn't able to satisfy myself as to what > OfflineIMAP would do. For many years now my primary email engine has been IMAP. The driving force behind this is that I need to access my mail folders from a wide range of systems in many locations. The role MH plays in my life is in local enclaves where I have small clusters of machines that exist (mostly) in isolation. E.g., on my network here on the boat I use MH to handle all the internal mail traffic. But anything going outside that domain inevitably goes through an IMAP client, if only so that a copy of my outbound mail gets saved in the outbox folder on my IMAP server. Something like offlineimap could change all of that. A local MH view of my IMAP server would be a godsend in many ways. And for me, the manual sync model actually fits very well with how I do things. The big question I have is: how well does offlineimap handle merge conflicts between >2 competing offline clients? This is *not* an easy problem to solve. That said, I'm going to take the code for a run and see how it does. If I can't break it with some >2 clients accessing tests, it could be worth looking at adding MH folder support. Teaching offlineimap about MH folders is guaranteed to be less painful than teaching MH about IMAP. --lyndon _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
