Annotations review please?

[Bron Gondwana]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 05:09:01PM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:
> G'day,
> 
> My work to implement RFC5257 and RFC5464 is nearly ready to merge to
> master.  It needs a couple of polishing touches, but most of the
> work is done and I would appreciate some expert review (normally I
> would just ask Bron as he's been tracking this, but he's on
> holidays).

Bron will grab a copy of it as well - and have a poke through, but
not sure how much time I will have.  Particularly since I've been
dragged into arguments about missing parts of IMAP again.  I appear
to have signed up to write specs for the following:

1) DELIVER - take a message via APPEND or from the spool and shove
   it to sendmail or moral equivalent for delivery - possibly add
   a couple of options to control it, but don't make it so difficult
   that nobody will implement it.
2) MOVE - someone already has a half-done spec for this, but they want
   it to be atomic, which makes it complex to implement, so nobody will.
   Write a spec for simple.  Worst case, extend the current spec with a
   NO_ATOMIC_MOVE to match the NO_ATOMIC_RENAME
3) DIGEST - specify a way to fetch a digest of a message (or maybe even
   part).   Both to get at the SHA1 we already store, and optionally to
   allow digests of decoded parts!  Gotta think a bit about this one.
   CPU is getting cheap enough that on-the-fly digests aren't
   unreasonable.
4) GUID - in our case it's just the SHA1, but gmail have their X-GM-MSGID
   and I'm sure other servers have other ways to uniquely identify a
   message over moves, even by other clients.  So you can keep the raw
   data cached locally in the presence of other clients.

Bron.