Re: mutt 1.3 imap stuff merge ?

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj stampede org>]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Jules Bean wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 07:36:30PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I looked at mutt 1.3 (devel) imap stuff and it looks nice. 
> > It doe ssl, gss, cram and folder browsing. Is anyone looking at that ?
> maybe 
> > it's time for a merge :) (any grand plans for balsa/imap) ?
> > The security stuff seems pretty straight forward to port but the folder
> > browsing i'm not so sure. Wasn't someone working on that ? (the GUI
> part at
> > least - at the very least it's needed at config time)
> 
> Last I looked at the IMAP code in libmutt it was absolutely horrible
> --- infested with 'hand-coded' parsing using strchr, when in fact IMAP
> responses have a nice LISPy format and are nicely susceptible to a
> generic parser.

I admit to have never seen the imap code in libmutt (I hear it's bad) but I
don't think using a generic parser would make it any better. It'd probably
make it worse. It's extremely easy to parse IMAP responses by hand, and
assuming it's working in libmutt, just leave it alone :-)

> 
> Is the 1.3 code any better?
> 
> The other thing to bear in mind is whether or not we are considering,
> as was once discussed, implementing 'camel' support. 'camel' is the
> gnome mail source backend which is behind evolution, and gives a
> consistent access to, e.g., normal folder, mh folders, IMAP folders,
> and I think NNTP (or maybe that's only planned)

NNTP is kinda implemented right now and IMAP is still in the works as well
(I'm the one hacking Camel's IMAP support). I think using Camel in Balsa
would be a bit overkill though, but that's just my opinion.

Jeff

-- 
Win2k: "It's not so much that it's only 65,000 bugs, it's just that they
stopped at 65,535 to prevent an overflow." - Mazel#Tov