Re: RFC mailbox interface

["M . Thielker" <balsa t-data com>]

On 2001.11.22 09:33 Pawel Salek wrote:

> There are a number of situations when shadowing is just a waste of space 
> and bandwidth and enforcing it always would be a mistake. Imagine you 
> have a mailbox that you look at the headers only (say, auction 
> subscription list, or similar), removing messages without looking at them 
> when the subject seems uninteresting. Shadowing such a mailbox would be a 
> mistake.
> 
Well, you can always select not to shadow such mailboxes. It means, of 
course, that they're unavailable while disconnected. It may also be an 
option to shadow the headers, but not the data. Whatever the user decides, 
really.

> I think if the library is designed to provide client-side caching, it is 
> fine. If it only does its primary job of standard-compliant communication 
> with the server, fetching, storing and searching data, it is fine, too.
> 
Maybe I get the time to work some more on a framework for such a library. I 
just can't see how I could possibly make enough time to do the handlers for 
the backing store(s) without using that which should be replaced, namely 
libmutt.

Melanie