Re: bincdrop - a (courier) maildrop replacment

On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Peter Stuge wrote:
> >Would there be a point in having Sieve filters on all folder? In
> >that case, one could use folder hooks to outsource all message
> >delivery from bincimapd to bincdrop.
> >Flame away! :)
> 
> Hahaha ;-). Folder hooks are a cool idea; I must say. Sieve
> filtering should happen on delivery, though.

Agreed, and that's out of scope for bincimapd anyway. But I like
bincdrop and the fact that it can reuse so much of bincimapd.


> But with messages added through APPEND, the client expects the
> exact same message to be in the folder it APPENDed to when the
> command has finished, and clients do go haywire if the contents
> change or the message isn't there.

Fair enough, but clients can also be notified of changes (supposedly)
made by other clients accessing the same folder, right? If a sieve
and/or hook changes the "contents" of a folder in some way that might
as well have been by another client, wouldn't the client always
behave correctly as long as it is kept up to speed on folder changes?

For hooks, I think it's OK to require the hook tool to keep the state
itself and push change notifications to binc, but if everyone prefers
binc to keep folder state internally and keep track of the hook tool
I won't mind since it'll likely make hook tools much simpler to
write.


> Does anyone know what other servers do? (Cyrus?)

Not me, but Sieve is part of Cyrus in some way and since Cyrus isn't
a mail delivery system AFAIK I assume Sieve is involved in
inter-folder delivery somehow. Just speculation though.


//Peter