On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 01:46:59PM +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> Stewart, you've worked most on this so far. Would you like to share
> your thoughts?
Just posted a new thread with my latest experiments. Things look
rather good from a storage size point of view. Still a few things to
work out tho
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 01:46:59PM +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> Stewart, you've worked most on this so far. Would you like to share
> your thoughts?
Just posted a new thread with my latest experiments. Things look
rather good from a storage size point of view. Still a few things to
work out tho
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:49:00 +0100, "Sebastian Spaeth" wrote:
> While notmuchsync fullfils my needs, it is a kludge. It needs to call
> "notmuch" for each mail where a MailDir flag has changed (which can be
> quite often on an initial run, where most mails are likely to be read),
> this can take a
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:49:00 +0100, "Sebastian Spaeth"
wrote:
> While notmuchsync fullfils my needs, it is a kludge. It needs to call
> "notmuch" for each mail where a MailDir flag has changed (which can be
> quite often on an initial run, where most mails are likely to be read),
> this can take
also sprach Sebastian Spaeth [2010.01.26.0249 +1300]:
> While notmuchsync fullfils my needs, it is a kludge. It needs to
> call "notmuch" for each mail where a MailDir flag has changed
> (which can be quite often on an initial run, where most mails are
> likely to be read), this can take a long, l
also sprach Asheesh Laroia [2010.01.25.1819 +1300]:
> You say "Ouch" but you should know Dovecot *already* does this. I
> don't mind interoperating with that.
>
> See http://wiki.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/Maildir, section "Issues
> with the specification", subsection "Locking". I term this theQ
>
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:46:59 +1300, martin f krafft
wrote:
> I think we all kinda agreed that the Maildir flags should not be
> used by notmuch and that things like Sebastian's notmuchsync should
> be used if people wanted flags represented in Maildir filenames.
While notmuchsync fullfils my ne
also sprach Asheesh Laroia [2010.01.21.1928 +1300]:
> >I suppose that I never actually considered merges on the IMAP
> >server side, but obviously the IMAP server has to work off a clone,
> >and that means it needs to merge.
>
> It's not "merge" that's unsafe; that just builds a tree in the git
>
also sprach Sebastian Spaeth [2010.01.26.0249 +1300]:
> While notmuchsync fullfils my needs, it is a kludge. It needs to
> call "notmuch" for each mail where a MailDir flag has changed
> (which can be quite often on an initial run, where most mails are
> likely to be read), this can take a long, l
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:49:00 +0100, "Sebastian Spaeth" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:46:59 +1300, martin f krafft
> wrote:
> > I think we all kinda agreed that the Maildir flags should not be
> > used by notmuch and that things like Sebastian's notmuchsync should
> > be used if people wante
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:49:00 +0100, "Sebastian Spaeth"
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:46:59 +1300, martin f krafft
> wrote:
> > I think we all kinda agreed that the Maildir flags should not be
> > used by notmuch and that things like Sebastian's notmuchsync should
> > be used if people want
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:46:59 +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> I think we all kinda agreed that the Maildir flags should not be
> used by notmuch and that things like Sebastian's notmuchsync should
> be used if people wanted flags represented in Maildir filenames.
While notmuchsync fullfils my nee
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Asheesh Laroia [2010.01.21.1928
> +1300]:
>>> I suppose that I never actually considered merges on the IMAP server
>>> side, but obviously the IMAP server has to work off a clone, and that
>>> means it needs to merge.
>>
>> It's not "me
also sprach Asheesh Laroia [2010.01.25.1819 +1300]:
> You say "Ouch" but you should know Dovecot *already* does this. I
> don't mind interoperating with that.
>
> See http://wiki.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/Maildir, section "Issues
> with the specification", subsection "Locking". I term this theQ
>
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Asheesh Laroia [2010.01.21.1928
+1300]:
I suppose that I never actually considered merges on the IMAP server
side, but obviously the IMAP server has to work off a clone, and that
means it needs to merge.
It's not "merge" that's unsafe;
also sprach Asheesh Laroia [2010.01.21.1928 +1300]:
> >I suppose that I never actually considered merges on the IMAP
> >server side, but obviously the IMAP server has to work off a clone,
> >and that means it needs to merge.
>
> It's not "merge" that's unsafe; that just builds a tree in the git
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
