From: Matthias A. <mat...@gm...> - 2005-09-01 10:07:31
|
Sunil Shetye <sh...@bo...> writes: > Rather well put. However, this is not the only thing I am after. > > Please check the revision r4173 which attempts to fix Debian Bug > #212240. This fix actually encourages the use of the 'flush' > option. > > It is contradictory to say that > > $ fetchmail --flush > > is dangerous, but > > $ fetchmail --daemon 0 --limit 100000 --flush > > is ok. In both cases, mails read through another email client are > going to get deleted. Thus, both the above usages of 'flush' are > eqaually dangerous. > > What I want us to do: > > - reverse the commit in r4173: this will break the link between > 'flush' and 'limit'. > > - add a FAQ item which tells that 'flush' option cannot be overloaded > to delete oversized mails as 'flush' is dangerous (with or without > the overloading) when one is using another email client to check > one's mailbox and that 'flush' should be immediately removed from > the rc file. > > - treat Debian Bug #212240 as a new feature request, not a bug. > > - decide whether this request should should be implemented before > 6.3.0. > In case, it is decided to implement now: > > - add a new option which will delete only oversized mails. The patch I > had mentioned earlier did exactly that. > - update the FAQ item mentioned above. Thinking about the options (yet another would be to ignore --flush for all configurations except POP3 UIDL), all are more or less ugly, even a flushoversized option or however you called it in your patch (haven't had time yet to look at it). Some people may want to delete oversized messages depending on mailbox size, some depending on age... -- Matthias Andree |