On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:09:45PM +0200, Maxim Vuets wrote:
> I propose to benefit from using a sequence-set that is described at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501#section-9.
>
that's already in the TODO file ... for years.
-
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:32:26PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Maxim Vuets wrote:
>> I'd really like to understand what is the underlying problem and why
>> offlineimap can handle it better (-: You are saying you experience a
>> slowness when pulling message st
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Maxim Vuets wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:39:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> ...
>>Which works reasonably fast, but if I read something in Gmail, it
>>doesn't get marked as read locally.
>>
>>If I do 'Sync PullNew PullFlags Push' then the local flags ar
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Maxim Vuets wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:59:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>I switched away from offlineimap when I got a synchronization issue
>>and had to re-download all my mail, and it took forever. Then mbsync
>>was much faster, but today offlinei
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:39:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
...
>Which works reasonably fast, but if I read something in Gmail, it
>doesn't get marked as read locally.
>
>If I do 'Sync PullNew PullFlags Push' then the local flags are
>updated, but it takes a long looong time to complete.
>
>I
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:59:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>I switched away from offlineimap when I got a synchronization issue
>and had to re-download all my mail, and it took forever. Then mbsync
>was much faster, but today offlineimap seems quite fast, maybe even
>faster.
I am being just
