Re: [Evolution-hackers] Is it worth customizing the IMAP headers to fetch?

2012-12-20 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Sat, 2012-12-15 at 13:32 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: I'm debating whether or not to support the imap-features Evolution plugin in IMAPX or just throw out the plugin at the same time we throw out the legacy IMAP backend. The plugin currently only works with the legacy IMAP backend. Just

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Is it worth customizing the IMAP headers to fetch?

2012-12-16 Thread Sankar P
My intuition tells me the vast majority of users won't care or even understand what these options do, and those that do tinker with them probably won't notice any significant difference in download times. Implementing this in IMAPX is no problem, in fact I almost have it done. But I'm

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Is it worth customizing the IMAP headers to fetch?

2012-12-15 Thread David Woodhouse
On Sat, 2012-12-15 at 13:32 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: Currently IMAPX just fetches all headers using RFC822.HEADER. Supporting the plugin would change this to use: BODY.PEEK ([HEADERS | predefined-header-list [custom-header-list]) depending on the plugin options selected (see

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Is it worth customizing the IMAP headers to fetch?

2012-12-15 Thread Matthew Barnes
On Sat, 2012-12-15 at 19:00 +, David Woodhouse wrote: The interesting use case, perhaps, is the first run of Evolution on a new mail store. That's when the full vs. targeted header fetch is going to be most noticeable. Right, and since we don't even present these IMAP header options in

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Is it worth customizing the IMAP headers to fetch?

2012-12-15 Thread David Woodhouse
On Sat, 2012-12-15 at 17:15 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: But even if we conclude that the more specific fetch is worthwhile, I'm still not convinced that a separate UI for *choosing* those headers is at all sane. If the user sets up filters which *look* at a given header, then we damn