From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: lists+sup@protozoic.com (Tim Gray)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:28:06 -0400
Subject: [sup-talk] problems with Maildir and IMAP offline
In-Reply-To: <1247584002-sup-504@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca>
References: <20090713232022.fe1d4839.lcanas@libresoft.es>
	<1247577490-sup-7098@Longbow>
	<20090714134544.GD90157@d228.scdc1.swarthmore.edu>
	<1247580020-sup-9946@Longbow>
	<20090714150034.GA393@d228.scdc1.swarthmore.edu>
	<1247584002-sup-504@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <20090714152806.GC393@d228.scdc1.swarthmore.edu>

On Tue 14, Jul'09 at 11:07 AM -0400, Ben Walton wrote:
> It's something I'd like too (not to play nice with other clients, but
> because it's "just better").

This sound like a good thing.  In my experience, 'just better' usually 
equals 'playing nice', since 'playing nice' usually equals following the 
standards.  That's how Maildirs are supposed to work - if everybody followed 
the spec, we'd be set.

Though I don't program for a living, nor do I know any Ruby, it seems like a 
doable thing.  Is there something fundamental blocking per-message sync-back 
of status as you read/delete/otherwise modify your mail?  I would assume 
there a reference to the original message location in a message's database 
entry.  If a message gets read, write an S at the end of the filename and 
move it to /cur.  If it gets deleted, delete it.  Operations on a message 
should affect the database and the mail store at the same time.  Why is 
something like sup-sync-back even necessary?

Anyway, these are just the musings of someone who doesn't have the tools to 
write something like sup, so I'll be quiet now before I embarrass myself any 
further.