From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: patroclo7@gmail.com (Giorgio Lando)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:36:55 +0100
Subject: [sup-talk] header cache
In-Reply-To: <20080116225816.GA25381@thened.net>
References: <704d6aa20801150454j635ed24p63fd544579c6e148@mail.gmail.com>
	<1200453820-sup-4777@south>
	<1200514969-sup-7541@clarabella.clarabella>
	<1200516410-sup-1963@south>
	<1200519319-sup-915@clarabella.clarabella>
	<20080116225816.GA25381@thened.net>
Message-ID: <1200526085-sup-9510@clarabella.clarabella>

Excerpts from Alec Berryman's message of Wed Jan 16 23:58:17 +0100 2008:
> Have you looked at offlineimap?  I started using it with mutt because
> IMAP, even with header cachine, was just way too slow.

Yes, I have used it and isync: you are right,they solve the problem of the slowness, 
since all the syncing happens in the background when using mutt or sup. 

But still I think that, when one does not care about folders and about
synchronization of different interfaces, the intrinsic advantages of
IMAP over POP3 tend to disappear. On the contrary there is the risk of
strange interplay (such as sup changing the flags in way that
offlineimap syncs to an IMAP server which does not understand or does
strange things); a solution is to use isync as a push-only synchronizer
(only sync the changes from the server to the local machine and not the
opposite), but really in this way you loose all the advantages of IMAP
and I prefer to use well-tested and powerful fetchers for POP3, such
as fdm and getmail.

Obviously if on the contrary for some reason you are forced to use IMAP,
then offlineimap and isync are the best solution

Giorgio