Re: offlineimap/mbsync state files compatibility

[Nicolas S. <nic...@la...>]

On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:18:33AM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 09:54:29PM -0300, Raphaël wrote:

> > - Why mbsync .uidvalidity file does not contain the value that
> >   OfflineIMAP calls folder UIDVALIDITY?
> > 
> i presume offlineimap forces the remote uid scheme onto the local store,
> so it has only one set of uidvalidity and uids. mbsync enumerates the
> local store separately, so it has two sets which need to be mapped.

This is the same here. Both (UIDs and UIDVALIDITY) are internally mapped
using the mailbox name.

> it wouldn't be too useful to make the state files compatible, as a
> migration like you're attempting is quite uncommon (though admittedly
> one of the most common questions on this list).

I disagree. I guess that more compatibility would be usefull for enough
users to worth it. :-)

> having a standardized format for the maildir extensions otoh would
> certainly be a win, because MUAs could make good use of it. i just saw
> in the list archive that offlineimap is getting support for imap
> keywords, and it would be really helpful to have a single format for
> that.

If someone is interested in implementing such format in OfflineIMAP, I'm
all for this.

On my side, I can make this available in imapfw while this task would
need to be postponed since imapfw is not ready yet. BTW, if nobody
raises to make OfflineIMAP support a standardized format I think I'll
come back in order to raise this topic again. A well-documented and
standardized format looks like a great idea.

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht