Re: [Patch] Enable multi-threaded POP3 retrieval
- From: Jack <ostroffjh users sourceforge net>
 
- To: balsa-list gnome org
 
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Enable multi-threaded POP3 retrieval
 
- Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 17:23:59 -0500
 
On 2018.01.03 10:11, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
Hi all,
attached is a larger patch which enables multi-threaded retrieval of  
POP3 messages.  The biggest part of the patch is related to changes  
of the progress dialogue implementation, though.  It also changes the  
preferences by replacing the old (retrieve) progress dialogue options  
by two simple check boxes for enabling the send and receive progress,  
respectively.  As a side effect, we get rid of a bunch of global  
variables used for the POP3 progress communication between the main  
and retrieval threads which is a lot cleaner IMHO.
BTW, the patch removes the (now obsolete) file src/threads.h.  I  
noticed that the file libbalsa/gforest.c is not referenced everywhere  
– couldn't we remove it?
As always, any comment is welcome!
Getting much closer, sort of.  I finally uninstalled Popfile.  It seems  
dead upstream.  I cleaned up all my remote server settings.  (Am I  
correct that I do not need to specify :ssl or port on the server  
name?)  I've set all to TLS required.  However, I'm getting long delays  
in checking for mail without this patch, and with it, I see similar  
delays, and the fetch dialog stays up for many minutes, until killed.   
Using G_MESSAGES_DEBUG=all (with or without this patch) I do NOT see  
anything that looks like an error in the console output, but I do get  
some popups with apparent errors/timeouts/? which disappear before I  
can capture them. However, none of them seem to have anything concrete  
or useful.  It's also not actually fetching mail from the one server I  
know has some (webmail).
I suspect these issues have nothing to do with the patch itself, but I  
can't find enough to actually use for troubleshooting.  I might have to  
fire up wireshark and aim it at one of the servers at a time, although  
I suppose it won't help much for any encrypted packets.
Thoughts?
Jack
[
Date Prev][
Date Next]   [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]   
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]