IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Open Forum / No, IMAP-to-IMAP transfer is safer.
Post #318,316
by static
12/8/09 9:49:07 PM
Reply
New No, IMAP-to-IMAP transfer is safer.
The IMAP protocol is actually quite rigid and rather unforgiving of mistakes.

IMAP isn't an on-disk format. Tarballing the directory would only be effective if the mail engines are identical. This means both the delivery agent *and* the IMAP server: I know Courier's IMAP server stores information in the Maildir directories that other Maildir-aware IMAP servers will probably not know about.

In fact, rsync would be better than a tarball because the file-timestamps would then stay correct.

Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
Post #318,317
by folkert
Picture of folkert
12/8/09 9:54:22 PM
Reply
New Re: No, IMAP-to-IMAP transfer is safer.
Oh I know that IMAP is a protocol.

I just use courier-imap server to courier-imap server.

Also, Drew, you could have setup your destination machine as a mail client and did the work with something like Mutt, so it only gets transferred once.
Post #318,320
by drook
Picture of drook
12/9/09 12:04:04 AM
Reply
New If I cared about fast or efficient, sure
But since I was setting up two accounts in Evo anyway, drag and drop -- as slow as it is -- works just fine for me.
--

Drew
     Anyone got a good "how to move email" howto? - (drook) - (21) - Dec. 7, 2009, 04:36:47 PM EST
         Re: Anyone got a good "how to move email" howto? - (folkert) - (14) - Dec. 7, 2009, 04:42:02 PM EST
             Only one problem ... well maybe more than one - (drook) - (13) - Dec. 7, 2009, 07:07:07 PM EST
                 A hosts file is fine. - (static) - (12) - Dec. 7, 2009, 07:44:30 PM EST
                     But both servers think they serve the same domain - (drook) - (11) - Dec. 8, 2009, 12:45:47 AM EST
                         IMAP doesn't care. - (static) - (10) - Dec. 8, 2009, 05:57:31 PM EST
                             Yup, churning away now - (drook) - (6) - Dec. 8, 2009, 06:58:40 PM EST
                                 IMAP Keeps what the Clients sets. - (folkert) - (5) - Dec. 8, 2009, 09:31:19 PM EST
                                     Don't have access to the source - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 8, 2009, 09:44:51 PM EST
                                         Re: Don't have access to the source - (folkert) - Dec. 8, 2009, 09:56:22 PM EST
                                     No, IMAP-to-IMAP transfer is safer. - (static) - (2) - Dec. 8, 2009, 09:49:07 PM EST
                                         Re: No, IMAP-to-IMAP transfer is safer. - (folkert) - (1) - Dec. 8, 2009, 09:54:22 PM EST
                                             If I cared about fast or efficient, sure - (drook) - Dec. 9, 2009, 12:04:04 AM EST
                             Could they be "clever" on the back-end? - (drook) - (2) - Dec. 9, 2009, 02:03:44 PM EST
                                 It would be very difficult. - (static) - (1) - Dec. 9, 2009, 05:25:08 PM EST
                                     Yep, IMAP seems pretty durable - (drook) - Dec. 9, 2009, 06:58:02 PM EST
         What Greg said. - (static) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2009, 05:10:58 PM EST
             Evolution will be fine with thousands of messages. - (pwhysall) - Dec. 8, 2009, 12:09:49 AM EST
         That was my tech-career ender - (mhuber) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2009, 06:47:59 PM EST
             Good thing he said "we" -NT - (drook) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2009, 07:04:44 PM EST
                 "we" didn't get fired. -NT - (mhuber) - Dec. 7, 2009, 08:42:58 PM EST
         Why did I wait so long to do this? - (drook) - Dec. 8, 2009, 12:07:33 PM EST

Bad command or filename.
143 ms