Re: Support for IDLE and PUSH extensions

[Oswald B. <os...@kd...>]

hi,

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 09:26:37PM +0000, Ignas Anikevičius wrote:
> Are there any plans for support of the IDLE and PUSH extensions in
> mbsync?
>
IDLE is being considered; it depends on the "daemon mode" item in the
TODO list. there was a related thread on the list some months ago.

PUSH seems to be vaporware for all i can tell.

at it happens, today i read the RFCs for CONDSTORE and QRESYNC (which
are actually implemented by gmail and certainly some others). with these
extensions, polling is actually quite cheap, so that may be a viable
alternative to IDLE.

> am ready to help with it if there is an agreement, that it would be
> beneficial to have the above functionality.
> 
please familiarize yourself with the code a bit. when you have a basic
grasp of the structure, you'll understand the challenge. we can discuss
possible solutions at that point. :)