On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:41:58 +0200 Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote: Paul Vixie writes: > > there's a think in imap called "push", which is part of why i keep
Not sure what you mean. Perhaps you mean having to push locally created messages to the imap server on reconnect? There is nothing specifically called push. > if ssh can talk to ssh-agent over a unix domain socket, and gpg likewise > to its gpg-agent, then the unix way of doing this is clear. it's > possible that a simple persistent imap session, accessible via > reconnections to the unix socket, is all we need. or, it's possible that > something more like prayermail, where there's some session layer caching > and a different non-imap protocol spoken between the agent and the > various mh commands, would serve us better. The client side "cache" is the MH folders. But the MH-imap mapping is all in the local server. An imap session is long lasting but can break (e.g. moving your laptop to a different location with a more expensive data access). So yes, offline access is a goal. While this is my current model, this is an experiment and I assume everything I write is throwaway code. For one thing, it is all in Go :-) [So that I can use it from a Raspi running plan9 as well.] > sadly, i can already think of non-imap-related reasons why mh needs an > agent of this kind. i think i'm infected with non-unix thinking. ouch. Not sure what you mean. Unix has daemons! _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
