Re: [PATCH] improve savemessage_searchforheader - take 2

[Adam Spiers <offlineimap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

John Goerzen (jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:47:19PM +0100, Adam Spiers wrote:
> > 
> > Secondly, I found the below edge case with the Groupwise IMAP server
> > which breaks it :-(
> 
> Unfortunately, that behavior from the IMAP server is not just bad or
> wrong, but COMPLETELY in violation of standards.  This is really, really
> broken on their part.

Really?  I'm not the RFC2060 expert so I'd be very interested to hear
why.  Intuitively it would seem reasonable to me for the RFC to allow
the IMAP server to move a mail elsewhere as soon as it's APPENDed and
CHECKed - this is one of the most common uses of server-side
filtering, after all.

> Worse, I don't think there's any way we can work around it.  I can't
> imagine IMAP mail readers doing the right thing in this case either.

Good news!  A colleague suggested a workaround to me which I was
embarassed not to have thought of: simply add a condition to the rule
"Item Status does not include 'Read'".  Therefore the rule only
triggers on genuinely new mail, not on mail which the user has just
read and then manually filed.  This seems to give me exactly the
behaviour I want so far.

> > Having said that, http://www.adamspiers.org/darcs/offlineimap/ now
> > reflects the latest code, which I believe is the least prone to
> > crashing, and also does the most *accurate* synchronisation so far,
> > even if it's not helpful to the user for the reasons above ...
> 
> Super.  I've pulled your patches and am taking a look.  I really
> appreciate your help.

My pleasure.

<rant relevance="little"> 
Why oh why is GNU Arch's usability so much worse than darcs?  I
invested countless hours of my spare time learning it, setting up the
right archives/toolsets etc., and failed to meet the objectives which
I achieved with darcs in minutes - namely enabling easy sharing of
patches with you :-(  I guess this is probably why you switched too?
</rant>