Extra Header field

[Stuart K. Bingë]

On Monday, 12 July 2004 17:58, Martin Konold wrote:
> > By making the header optional you will have to parse all messages anyway
> > before you can make the final decision, which totally negates the purpose
> > of adding the header to the specification in the first place.
>
> I am afraid that this is the source for the confusion.
>
> 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.

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).

In terms of load on the IMAP server and code complexity it is far more 
efficient to be able to perform a simple SEARCH command to get the messages 
that you are interested in. This way you do not have to do the exact same job 
that Cyrus does best - efficiently manage mail messages.

-- 
Stuart Bingë
Code Fusion cc.

Office: +27 11 673 0411
Mobile: +27 83 298 9727
Email: s.binge at codefusion.co.za

Tailored email solutions; Kolab specialists.
http://www.codefusion.co.za/