[Spambayes] Re: How well does sb_imapfilter.py work?
tameyer at ihug.co.nz
Thu Sep 16 07:40:26 CEST 2004
[It doesn't appear that this messages to spambayes at python.org has been
answered yet - sorry about that! I've been away and so am catching up with
the messages. Please ignore this if I'm wrong and this has been resolved
> Out of curiosity, could this be done using UIDs? I guess that
> would add the necessity of keeping track of UIDs, but if reading/writing
> is the main performance culprit, it would be a lot faster. Maybe that's
> what happens in 1.1?
IMAP is a terrible protocol. One of the problems is that UIDs are not
required to be persistent. They often are, but that's just an
implementation choice. Even combined with the UIDVALIDITY value, it's not
enough. Otherwise this would have been the initial choice, as it's
certainly the easiest (and fastest, because you can get hold of the UID
without anything else). Flags would be good, too, except that servers
aren't required to accept arbitrary flags, although many do.
What 1.1 does is use the Message-ID header, if the message already has one,
and add it's own if it doesn't. Almost all email messages do have a
Message-ID header, and although it's not certain to be unique, the chances
of duplication are very remote.
> I'll keep testing it ... I'll try downloading 1.1, too (I
> guess we can get this from CVS?).
Yes, if you use the code in CVS (Head), that's what will end up being 1.1a1.
Please always include the list (spambayes at python.org) in your replies
(reply-all), and please don't send me personal mail about SpamBayes. This
way, you get everyone's help, and avoid a lack of replies when I'm busy.
More information about the Spambayes