On Friday 30 April 2004 00:49, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Thursday 29 April 2004 07:50, Till Adam wrote:
> > On Thursday 29 April 2004 02:13, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > Obviously
> > > checking the timestamp isn't sufficient. Additionally we should
> > > check the file size (in case of mbox) or the hashed list of message
> > > files (in case of maildir).
> >
> > Ok, then what presizely are the conditions that tell us that index
> > and mailbox are out of sync? What is the "correct" relationship
> > between size of an mbox and the number of entries in an index, or
> > some other info in/on the index? Do you mean store the size/hash in
> > the index and check if that entry still matches?
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I meant. 

Ok, I will see if that can be implemented efficiently.

> But we should still try to save as 
> much information from the old index as possible (especially the message
> status). Of course, that's more or less orthogonal to the detection of
> invalid indeces.

Yes, that's needed and orthogonal.

Till
_______________________________________________
KMail developers mailing list
KMail-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail-devel