Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again

[Ken Hornstein]

>>have to manage the mapping between MH message numbers and IMAP messages,
>>which involves a synchronization process.  Also, it just seems like to
>Yeah, if I were doing it I'd probably not support all of MH's numbering
>and sequence goodness... for simplicity/sanity's sake. Just allow basic
>sortm to specify what field to sort on, and message numbers are auto-
>incremented as you enumerate through the box/folder; stored in a cache
>each listing for translation back to IMAP msg when issuing an nmh command.

So the "unseen" sequence is relatively easy to deal with.  But that's not
the tough issue.  The tough issue is that other clients can remove messages
which could cause the message numbers to change.

Other issues crop up; it's not always clear to me there's a 1-1
correspondence between filesystem operatings and nmh/IMAP operations.

>I don't see how having FUSE transliterate IMAP to MH folders is so
>different from having OfflineIMAP transliterate them to Maildir,
>they're both files and directories for local tools to work on?

Well, other than FUSE adds a horribly unportable and extra complicated
layer? :-) I guess to me the idea is that you can perform a bunch of
operations locally that do whatever filesystem operations might be
necessary, and then run a "sync" command to bring everything up-to-date.
That seems to me to be actually achievable.

--Ken