[Dovecot] changing INTERNALDATE or similar

[Timo Sirainen]

On Jul 18, 2008, at 6:33 PM, Karl Rudnick wrote:

> How could any implementation of this protocol possibly use a file  
> system
> time stamp to represent that important piece of meta-data,
> no matter where the file lives? It seems totally reasonable that  
> this is
> what Outlook uses for the Received date (and I rarely defend  
> Microsoft).
>
> This seems like a real design flaw in the dovecot implementation. I  
> am fairly
> new to dovecot (and like many aspects of it over uw-imap), but having
> to really be careful with my mail store's mtimes borders on the  
> absurd.
> I realize it is "implementation defined", but the intent of the  
> definition
> surely does not refer to file system time stamps. Any chance this can
> be reconsidered? Is this an actual dovecot issue or a more general  
> Maildir issue?

Why does it matter where the timestamp lives? No matter how it was  
stored, you would have had the exact same problem because your client  
told Dovecot to use the current timestamp when saving the messages.

And why would keeping the INTERNALDATE in mtime be bad? It only  
changes if you write to the file. And existing mails must not be  
modified or you'll get other problems as well.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20080718/9c573419/attachment.bin