From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS6315 166.70.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com (out02.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9328A1F85E; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 23:12:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1fe7Ef-00005v-UJ; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:12:25 -0600 Received: from [97.119.167.31] (helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1fe7Ee-00043G-9m; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 17:12:25 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Eric Wong Cc: meta@public-inbox.org References: <87k1q1bky6.fsf@xmission.com> <20180712014715.dn5aouayoa3uejp4@dcvr> <87k1q07dyc.fsf@xmission.com> <20180712230946.mqv3yjw4aabf7xrf@dcvr.yhbt.net> <878t6f1ch7.fsf@xmission.com> <20180713230746.GA2680@dcvr> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 18:12:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180713230746.GA2680@dcvr> (Eric Wong's message of "Fri, 13 Jul 2018 23:07:46 +0000") Message-ID: <874lh2ybl9.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1fe7Ee-00043G-9m;;;mid=<874lh2ybl9.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.167.31;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+FUmzSPqMGFe3+oRWsl7yaSBtaDIUdiz4= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.167.31 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: IMAP server [was: Q: V2 format] X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) List-Id: Eric Wong writes: > "Eric W. Biederman" wrote: >> > "Eric W. Biederman" wrote: >> >> Eric Wong writes: >> > As far as personal mail goes, I wouldn't want serial numbers at all >> > (more unnecessary state to keep track of). >> >> At least imap requires serial numbers, and I imagine the easy transition >> for mail clients is to have an imap server. As you have mentioned an >> ordered list of commits is good enough to reconstruct the msgnum >> reliably so it is unlikely we would need to do anything special there. > > I would rather layer IMAP (and POP3) on top of NNTP than to tie > it to any git/SQLite/Xapian parts in public-inbox. We could > ship it with public-inbox, of course; but I don't see why an > IMAP or POP3 server could not work by using innd (or similar) as > a backend. > > I don't think any design compromises need to be made to existing > the git/SQLite/Xapian parts to support IMAP/POP3. > > Hosting an IMAP/POP3 server is way more overhead for the admin > as it requires storing user credentials and storing per-reader > state. So the preference is to do NNTP as well as possible and > layer the complexity of per-user account data on top of it. > > Right now, none of the NNTP/HTTP parts require write access > to the machine it runs on aside from log files. > > Thus the goal is to promote NNTP usage as it's cheapest/easiest > for the server admin; but to still have IMAP/POP3 as stopgaps > (similar to the ssoma/mlmmj-replay script I use to allow SMTP > subscriptions to this inbox). That makes complete sense. I definitely agree that NNTP should be what is optimized for. Eric