[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again

From: Lyndon Nerenberg
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:16:40 -0700

On Oct 24, 2013, at 11:35 AM, Joel Uckelman <address@hidden> wrote:

> I looked this over a bit and wasn't able to satisfy myself as to what
> OfflineIMAP would do.

For many years now my primary email engine has been IMAP.  The driving force 
behind this is that I need to access my mail folders from a wide range of 
systems in many locations.  The role MH plays in my life is in local enclaves 
where I have small clusters of machines that exist (mostly) in isolation.  
E.g., on my network here on the boat I use MH to handle all the internal mail 
traffic.  But anything going outside that domain inevitably goes through an 
IMAP client, if only so that a copy of my outbound mail gets saved in the 
outbox folder on my IMAP server.

Something like offlineimap could change all of that.  A local MH view of my 
IMAP server would be a godsend in many ways.  And for me, the manual sync model 
actually fits very well with how I do things.

The big question I have is: how well does offlineimap handle merge conflicts 
between >2 competing offline clients?  This is *not* an easy problem to solve.

That said, I'm going to take the code for a run and see how it does.  If I 
can't break it with some >2 clients accessing tests, it could be worth looking 
at adding MH folder support.  Teaching offlineimap about MH folders is 
guaranteed to be less painful than teaching MH about IMAP.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]