Re: [Nmh-workers] message rewrite/fix up

[bergman]

In the message dated: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:05:58 -0500,
The pithy ruminations from David Levine on 
<Re: [Nmh-workers] message rewrite/fix up> were:
=> Paul wrote:
=> 
=> > david wrote:

[SNIP!]

=> 
=> Mark wrote:
=> 
=> > However... I see that altering it in-place is probably
=> > easier, and the result is available "everywhere" without
=> > still-more-hooks to filters, etc.
=> 
=> No doubt some people won't want to modify the original
=> message.  It will be easy enough to put the modified version
=> in another file of the user's choice, or in a new message
=> using rcvstore, or both.
=> 
=> > Hmmm...what about abusing something like the comma-prefix
=> > used by rmm to keep the original , unchanged message? When
=> > the fixupfilter is run, it copies $messageID to
=> > ,$messageID.orig (or some such). Of course, this would
=> > imply extending rmmproc, refile, "folder -pack", etc. to
=> > deal with the [semi] hidden "orig" file in parallel with
=> > the fixed message.
=> 
=> That's not where I'm headed, I want to minimize disruption.
=> I can see moving the original to ,$messageID when modifying

Just to confirm...we're both talking about using the Message-ID header as the
basename for the saved copy of the original message, not the message number as
used by nmh?

Hmmm... I've never filed a bug report on this, and I don't know if it's still
an issue w. v1.5, but I vaguely remember a problem with rmm "comma" files,
something like:

        if a comma file (,123) already exists

        and a message (123) is rmm'ed

        comma file does not get updated with the content of the message, it is
        simply deleted

While not serious, this was sometimes an unpleasant surprise. If the user
expects that the ,123 file contains the original version of message 123, this
would be a bigger issue.

=> in place.  The user can do what they want with it.
=> Personally, I'd only use it when something went wrong.  If I
=> wanted to save the original, I wouldn't modify in-place, as

Ah, but that's the thing...I'd usually want to see the modified version,
and only extremely rarely (for technical debugging, or more likely for
"managerial" debugging) would I want to see the original, to prove that
the message had particular content as it was received. I wouldn't know
in advance that I wanted to save the original.

Thanks,

Mark

=> noted above.
=> 
=> David
=>