At 10:33 AM -0500 4/4/02, Michael D. Sofka wrote: >The .cache code is incomplete. The >cache file stores the header information qpopper returns to the >client. If the .cache file is older than the mailbox, qpopper re-scans >the mailbox. This is not necessary, the information in the .cache >file is still good, it is just incomplete. It would be much (much (much)) >faster to use the .cache information to scan only the new mail.
Yes, it would. Note that the code does handle bulletins being added to the mailbox, just not any other modifications. > >I could see two options, a --fast-cache and a --safe-cache. Fast cache >would assume that nothing else affects the mailbox file, and all new >mail is appended. It would just read the .cache and seek to the next >new message. --safe-cache would assume that something else >might remove messages (such as an old message scanner), and so >would seek-and-confirm each .cache entry. This would still be faster >than a re-scan. The source says that .cache is incomplete. Is anybody >else completing it? Volunteers are always welcome. >Regarding scanning the spool and removing old mail--this is a very good >idea. We do this once a week, it typically removes 600-800meg of old >mail. Without it, we would soon be buried in old messages. It would >be nice if qpopper could do this. Say an option to remove messages >that are more than n days old. There is an option to immediately delete downloaded mail. Extending it to delete messages n days old would be nice, and would fit with the CAPA EXPIRE tag facility to notify clients of the policy. Again, volunteers are always welcome.
