[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IMAP and Exchange 2007 - imap-fetch-safe
From: |
Reiner Steib |
Subject: |
Re: IMAP and Exchange 2007 - imap-fetch-safe |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:27:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
On Sat, Jan 17 2009, Dave Love wrote:
> Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Maybe the problem is a condition-case within another condition-case
>> work? I recall problems related to this when run as an async process
>> filter.
>
> Yes -- signals from process filters are normally caught; I wasn't
> thinking or looking closely enough at what the code does originally. I
> must have had debug-on-error set when testing, but I was sure I'd
> actually tried it in fresh Emacs.
>
>> Maybe it is possible to re-write the approach without using
>> condition-case, that would likely be easier to debug anyway.
>
> I'm not sure it would be easier, but see the comment in the patch below.
> I made it before reading this, and at least the fix over my previous
> code is just an extra binding. It works for me in a fresh Emacs, and
> isn't broken in Emacs 22.
>
>> I'd prefer to avoid sending the Exchange bug-workaround approach
>> ("1,*:*") to any server that does not need it. I've seen servers that
>> (internally) open up all e-mails in the folder and searches them, but
>> for the 1,* approach was able to return data quickly.
>
> Obviously that's a good reason. Previous comments about efficiency that
> I was referred to seemed to be about something different.
>
>> This may be old information now, but generally I don't see why
>> imap.el should send poor protocol output to all servers just
>> because Exchange is broken.
>
> [It does have workarounds for various other servers, not that I want to
> defend Exchange in any way. Exchange 2007 is doing horrible things like
> messing with MIME parts, which I don't think the previous version did,
> and I wish I could avoid it.]
>
> Anyhow, per the comment in the patch,
+ ;; FIXME: Maybe it would be cleaner to have a flag to not signal
+ ;; the error (which otherwise gives a message), and test
+ ;; `imap-failed-tags'. Also, Other IMAP clients use other forms of
+ ;; request which work with Exchange, e.g. Claws does "UID FETCH 1:*
+ ;; (UID)" rather than "FETCH UID 1,*". Is there a good reason not
+ ;; to do the same?
> is there a good reason -- other than simplicity? -- to use FETCH
> rather than UID like other clients? I'm speaking mostly in
> ignorance of IMAP...
Comments? (Simon?)
> 2009-01-17 Dave Love <address@hidden>
>
> * imap.el (imap-fetch-safe): Bind debug-on-error.
> (imap-debug): Add imap-fetch-safe.
Installed.
Bjorn (and others), does the auto-detection work for you with the
current version from CVS?
Bye, Reiner.
--
,,,
(o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/