Re: IMAP and Exchange 2007 - imap-fetch-safe

[Reiner Steib]

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/