On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:41:58 +0200 Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote:
Paul Vixie writes:
there's a think in imap called "push", which is part of why i keep
Not sure what you mean. Perhaps you mean having to push
locally created messages to the imap server on reconnect?
There is nothing specifically called push.
if ssh can talk to ssh-agent over a unix domain socket, and gpg likewise
to its gpg-agent, then the unix way of doing this is clear. it's
possible that a simple persistent imap session, accessible via
reconnections to the unix socket, is all we need. or, it's possible that
something more like prayermail, where there's some session layer caching
and a different non-imap protocol spoken between the agent and the
various mh commands, would serve us better.
The client side "cache" is the MH folders. But the MH-imap
mapping is all in the local server. An imap session is long
lasting but can break (e.g. moving your laptop to a different
location with a more expensive data access). So yes, offline
access is a goal.
While this is my current model, this is an experiment and I
assume everything I write is throwaway code. For one thing, it
is all in Go :-) [So that I can use it from a Raspi running
plan9 as well.]
sadly, i can already think of non-imap-related reasons why mh needs an
agent of this kind. i think i'm infected with non-unix thinking. ouch.
Not sure what you mean. Unix has daemons!
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers