Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again

[Bakul Shah]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:41:58 +0200 Paul Vixie <address@hidden> wrote:
Paul Vixie writes:
> 
> there's a think in imap called "push", which is part of why i keep 

Not sure what you mean. Perhaps you mean having to push
locally created messages to the imap server on reconnect?
There is nothing specifically called push.

> if ssh can talk to ssh-agent over a unix domain socket, and gpg likewise 
> to its gpg-agent, then the unix way of doing this is clear. it's 
> possible that a simple persistent imap session, accessible via 
> reconnections to the unix socket, is all we need. or, it's possible that 
> something more like prayermail, where there's some session layer caching 
> and a different non-imap protocol spoken between the agent and the 
> various mh commands, would serve us better.

The client side "cache" is the MH folders. But the MH-imap
mapping is all in the local server. An imap session is long
lasting but can break (e.g. moving your laptop to a different
location with a more expensive data access). So yes, offline
access is a goal.

While this is my current model, this is an experiment and I
assume everything I write is throwaway code. For one thing, it
is all in Go :-) [So that I can use it from a Raspi running
plan9 as well.]

> sadly, i can already think of non-imap-related reasons why mh needs an 
> agent of this kind. i think i'm infected with non-unix thinking. ouch.

Not sure what you mean. Unix has daemons!