Bugzilla

> When attachmentId is used, the attachment should not automatically be deleted, because the client user claims responsibility for maintaining the attachment.

I don't think that this is an obvious assumption. 

If that is something specific you need for the blocklist, we could add a flag to disable pruning explicitly.

Otherwise, the algorithm is pretty straightforward:

```
const allRecords = await client.db.list();
const currentRecordsIDs = new Set(allRecords.map(r => r.id));

const allAttachments = await client.attachments.listAll();
const attachmentsToDelete = allAttachments.reduce((entry, acc) => {
   if (!currentRecordsIDs.has(entry.attachmentId)) {
     acc.push(id);
     return acc;
   }
}, []);

await client.attachments.deleteAll(attachmentsToDelete);
``` 

I propose that we execute this on the 24H timer, and not on push notifications.

> When attachmentId is used, the attachment should not automatically be deleted, because the client user claims responsibility for maintaining the attachment.

I don't think that this is an obvious assumption. 

If that is something specific you need for the blocklist, we could add a flag to disable pruning explicitly.

Otherwise, the algorithm is pretty straightforward:

```
const allRecords = await client.db.list();
const currentRecordsIDs = new Set(allRecords.map(r => r.id));

const allAttachments = await client.attachments.listAll();
const attachmentsToDelete = allAttachments.reduce((entry, acc) => {
   if (!currentRecordsIDs.has(entry.record.id)) {
     acc.push(entry.attachmentId);
     return acc;
   }
}, []);

await client.attachments.deleteAll(attachmentsToDelete);
``` 

I propose that we execute this on the 24H timer, and not on push notifications.