Extra Header field

[Martin Konold]

Am Montag, 12. Juli 2004 18:07 schrieb Stuart K. Bingë:

Hi Stuart,

> > What I want to say: If the header is there it is "the law". If the header
> > is missing do the parsing as before.
>
> This is actually how I used to handle the UID header issue in the old Horde
> code - if it was not there, I reverted back to loading up the entire
> message and actually re-saved the offending messages with the UID in the
> headers.

So your extra effort was only required in case the header was missing. 
Afterwards everything is fine again. I would call this robust and "self 
healing".

BTW: Can you please explain what kind of UID you are talking about? E.g. 
Outlook knows about an entry id. Kontact also knows about KOrganizer UIDs....

> Obviously this is not desirable, as it puts a lot of load on the server and
> therefore limits scalability. I would suggest that we make saving this
> additional header mandatory, as well as the UID header (and any more that
> we require in the future).

I am afraid that we start to abuse the mail header as a database. 

(The really bad thing about that is that if we make these musts instead of 
hints that we assume coherency)

Regards,
-- martin

Dipl.-Phys. Martin Konold

e r f r a k o n
Erlewein, Frank, Konold & Partner - Beratende Ingenieure und Physiker
Nobelstrasse 15, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
fon: 0711 67400963, fax: 0711 67400959
email: martin.konold at erfrakon.de