[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] The invisible mail folder

From: Harald Geyer
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] The invisible mail folder
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 03:31:56 +0100

> > I still think that numeric folder names rise questions: Consider the
> > above example. cur = inbox/11100. What should "refile next:22 +foo" do?
> > Move the numeric folder? Leave a copy with the name ",11111" around?
> > (Note that you can't have hardlinks to directories on the filesystems
> > I know.)
> I think it should do the same thing I hope to make scan do, i.e.
> give a warning something like "Can't handle message <number> because
> <reason>, skipping..."
> In the case of a sequence like next:22, I think it makes sense for
> the skipped problematic "message" still to count in the 22, since "skipped"
> is not the same as "not there".

I agree, because I think "scan next:22", "show next:22", 
"refile next:22 +foo", etc. should all operate on the same set of
messages. And since (due to permission issues for example) show and
refile might choke on different files we only can guarantee that by
always counting everything being there.


> > If we decide, that nmh tools should explicitely ignore any non-regular
> > files, could this be done by a change in one central place? As far as
> > I know the source I doubt it.
> Whenever I get time I refactor the nmh code to gather common stuff into
> one place. In fact, it was probably this kind of change that introduced
> the "+.." problem.
> I'll *try* to refactor as part of these modifications. Wherever the
> refactor can be done easily I'll do it first and then introduce the
> change. In other cases I might decide it's easier not to refactor yet.

Great. Any such effort will sure help a lot! Error handling and recovery
is sure one of the more difficult things to do in a central manner 

> > > I think it would make much more sense for the nmh commands to be
> > > fault tolerant rather than restrict what can be done with folder-creating
> > > commands, since there are so many other ways for nasty directory entries
> > > to be created (i.e. by non-nmh commands).
> > 
> > Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here:
> ...
> > No, I don't want to restrict the folder-creating commands in any way.
> > When I say that numeric folder names should not be a feature, I only
> > mean that it shouldn't be encouraged and when they break something
> > somewhere then nobody should be surprised.
> Does the diagnostic I describe above satisfy you?

All you have written seems quite sane and desirable to me. If you really
have the time and think implementing this is fun, then go ahead. I'm
glad to see somebody is working on nmh again!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]