Re: Delete on destination

[Cory Logan]

I'm also wondering about this. I was expecting there to be a flag for it, but didn't see one. Thanks!

On Friday, June 22, 2012 6:38:00 PM UTC-5, Rory Low wrote:

It is possible to have larch delete messages on the destination side if it has been deleted on the source side?

I've tried multiple different attempts but I am unable to achieve this.  Any help is appreciated.

[Ryan Grove]

Sorry, Larch can't delete messages on the destination, since it's designed to perform one-way syncing. If you want two-way sync, you might want to look into another tool like OfflineIMAP, which is designed for that sort of thing: http://offlineimap.org/

- Ryan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "larch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to larch+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to la...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/larch.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Cory Logan]

Hey Ryan,

Thanks a ton for the quick response. I would like to suggest that this might actually still fall under the category of a one-way sync, and I'll give you my case scenario:

I'm trying to efficiently move an entire organization from one mail server to another, and in order to ensure that all of the mail makes it to the new server in a timely way, I want to run two migrations in the same direction. Once, well before we change the MX records. In the time it takes to migrate the entire organization (it might be a week), people will be deleting messages. I want to then flip the MX record, and run another Larch job to update it.

Does that make sense? And could it be in Larch's future? And supposing someone submitted the feature would you consider merging it in?

Thanks again for this awesome tool!

Cory

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "larch" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/larch/U6B2gHYaRdk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to larch+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Ryan Grove]

Larch isn't under active development anymore (I long ago stopped having a need for it myself), but even if it were, two-way sync is a big can of worms to open up. It's very hard to get right, and when you don't get it right, people can lose precious data. One of my fundamental principles in developing Larch was that I never ever wanted to lose anyone's data due to a bug, which is why Larch is designed never to delete anything on the destination server.

So, no, it's not in Larch's future, and I wouldn't accept a pull request that implements it. That said, Larch is open source, so feel free to fork it, change the name, and have your way with it! :)

For your specific case, I'd recommend doing a staggered migration. Divide your users into groups and schedule a time for each group when their accounts on the old server will become read-only and new mail will start being delivered to the new server. As soon as a user's account on the old server becomes read-only, start migrating it to the new server with Larch. Larch will happily migrate all the old messages to the new server even while new messages are being delivered there, and the only inconvenience to the user will be that they'll need to wait for the migration to finish before all their old messages will be available to them.

(you could also perform the migration all at once for all users, but that may or may not be feasible depending on how many users you're migrating)

- Ryan

[Cory Logan]

Ryan, you're amazing.

Thank you so much for the time and attention to someone else's problems. I will propose the staggered migration scheme, but not all of the pieces of the migration are in my hands. And you're probably right about the can of worms, it probably isn't something I want to get into. I also fear data loss :)

Either way, thanks for a lovely little tool!

Take care,

Cory