Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Support BODYSTRUCTURE parsing for FETCH results #116

Closed
lberezy opened this issue Apr 17, 2019 · 5 comments
Closed

Support BODYSTRUCTURE parsing for FETCH results #116

lberezy opened this issue Apr 17, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed

Comments

@lberezy
Copy link
Contributor

lberezy commented Apr 17, 2019

I think this might rely on the underlying parser crate supporting this (djc/imap-proto#15), but it would be nice if this crate could expose a parsed BODYSTRUCTURE for messages (FETCH results).

This would be useful to allow the client to determine properties of a message in a bandwidth-constrained environment. Currently, the a message with large attachments must be fully downloaded and parsed just to determine that there are attachments.
@jonhoo jonhoo added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Apr 17, 2019
@lberezy
Copy link
Contributor Author

lberezy commented Apr 23, 2019

Just as an update, there's currently a pending pull request for djc/tokio-imap#44 to support the parsing of BODYSTRUCTURE. This should make it fairly straight forward to expose this functionality in this crate, perhaps as an Option<Bodystructure> for Fetch results. Any thoughts?

@jonhoo
Copy link
Owner

jonhoo commented Apr 23, 2019

Seems reasonable to me!

@avitex avitex mentioned this issue Sep 2, 2019
Closed
@benjaminweb benjaminweb mentioned this issue Feb 23, 2020
Closed
@JoshMcguigan
Copy link

I believe this functionality was merged in tokio-imap with djc/tokio-imap#48.

@jonhoo
Copy link
Owner

jonhoo commented Jun 21, 2020

Hmm, I think we could have closed this once #150 landed, unless I'm missing something?

@JoshMcguigan
Copy link

Ah, yes I'd think so 👍

@jonhoo jonhoo closed this as completed Jun 21, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Add BODYSTRUCTURE support
3 participants
@jonhoo @lberezy @JoshMcguigan