From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <e@80x24.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN:  
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,
	DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF shortcircuit=no
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1])
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AAB71F55F;
	Mon, 18 Sep 2023 21:14:22 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=80x24.org;
	s=selector1; t=1695071662;
	bh=76hxbeNDWIgYUzEvzKR8fI2vj7pkIdogMFfbjOcqZpo=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=yUK72MFvfNaXcaZ/0jhpxCNtcEsWV9fGuIQoaQMhrr7q90/B8meEx5zACi1MJFMlB
	 VMHaG+PIQAEjnYweLlshz5CdTrQ+a5hRGARcu1OI322XYNrPyI1EyNJaaSLnLKUvNU
	 NzZMQGpvGGUrtF+RpdfKY5WSrV9vzgVDdxR1G2Tw=
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 21:14:22 +0000
From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: meta@public-inbox.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] pop3: support `?limit=$NUM' parameter in mailbox name
Message-ID: <20230918211422.M309741@dcvr>
References: <20230912-impart-swinger-4c2434@meerkat>
 <20230912224034.M689061@dcvr>
 <20230913-tarot-monogamy-2f614c@meerkat>
 <20230914003828.M101484@dcvr>
 <20230915-reputable-maverick-13736d@meerkat>
 <20230915204110.M732304@dcvr>
 <20230918-barrel-unhearing-b63869@meerkat>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230918-barrel-unhearing-b63869@meerkat>
List-Id: <meta.public-inbox.org>

Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 08:41:10PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Thanks, pushed the series as
> > a37e3ab3740c24c3 (pop3: limit default mailbox to 1K messages, 2023-09-14)
> > 392d251f97d46579 (pop3: support `?limit=$NUM' parameter in mailbox name, 2023-09-12)
> 
> Oh, I did notice what is probably unintentional behaviour -- passing
> ?limit=XXX affects all mailbox access, not just the initial retrieval.
> 
> E.g. if I configured pop3 with ?limit=128, then leave for the weekend and
> return on Monday, I will only be able to retrieve 128 new messages, regardless
> of how many arrived over the weekend.
> 
> I'm not sure if this is what was intended -- I think it makes more sense to
> have ?limit=XXX only affect the initial retrieval. In all other cases, when a
> tracking uuid cookie is present, it should return all messages regardless of
> ?limit=.
> 
> Does that make sense?

I think there should be an initial_limit parameter in addition to the
current limit.   initial_limit would be more suited for cronjobs and
such running on 24/7 systems.  The regular limit would be better
for systems with intermittent access and could go weeks w/o being
online (including situations where somebody restored a system from
a months/years-old backup).

Not feeling well, will try to work on it once (or if) I feel better.