Subject: RE: [lemonade] Target directory for CATENATE in forward without download

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:45:51 -0500

>> >My point was that the issues around how to make CATENATEd 
>> messages draft friendly have not be resolved. As per 
>> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lemonade/current/msg00515.html suggests.
>>  
>>
> Pete has said that this is still outstanding.

I got this feeling from Mark Crispin as well. I don't understand how to use CATENATE with drafts at the moment.

>>To avoid sloshing bits the client would have to keep track 
>>of which UIDs in the draft folder are true drafts and which are not.
>>
>>
>Or the client can just use a flag to mark all such messages.

Hence ... why I don't think it is a good idea to use draft semantics. Either the draft folder or the \Draft flag. Placing it in the draft folder without the \Draft flag set strikes me as ad hoc.

Mike

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:16:59 -0500

On 10/12/04 at 10:45 AM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>I got this feeling from Mark Crispin as well. I don't understand how 
>to use CATENATE with drafts at the moment.

There is the server-unfriendly method: When you want to edit your draft:

1. Get the BODYSTRUCTURE. Parse.
2. Get all of the editable text (or any "reasonably sized") parts.
3. Edit locally.
4. CATENATE the new text pieces and URLs to the pieces *in the prior 
draft* that you want in the new message.
5. Delete the prior draft.

Downsides:

1. If the server implements CATENATE by copying pieces (instead of 
doing a reference count to a database of pieces), that's a lot of bit 
sloshing.

2. Depending on how the server does quotas (especially if the server 
does a copying implementation), the user could blow quota by having 
two messages of great size on the server.

Of course, it's easy to solve the draft problem by using either 
ANNOTATE or by doing embedded-URI, but the former takes a function 
that isn't out there now, and the latter takes either takes a 
re-download and re-CATENATE or an EXPAND command, neither of which 
I'm terribly fond of (for reasons I've previously explained).

Suggestions taken.
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102