<DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> unified inbox in local repo

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:06:04AM +0000, J. Tull wrote:

> ok, this is indeed more helpful. I read your article on maxage and
> indeed it sounds like imap is broken by design.

Not IMAP but our legacy strategy.

>                                                 But the failure exposed
> is not the problem to my request. My request is about getting
> information such as Message-ID, subject, date and do the comparison of
> some or all these values for each email entry on remote and locally to
> know whether it should be downloaded. In my case i've faced only once a
> failure with message-ID, so i think it will be fine without date and
> subject. But still it would be good to have these values too optionally
> to strenghten the comparison process as needed.

This blog post provides clues about what is done in offlineimap and why
something new might fail.

I'm wondering if writing your own program directly on top of
imaplib/imaplib2 would be easier. I don't know.

I this point, I'd start playing with either one to get an idea by myself
and estimate how it goes compared to patching offlineimap.

Have fun!

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht