Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

[P Vixie]

The .mh_sequences file is read directly by some MUAs. That's likely wrong and they should use shell commands to get at the data. But I don't think we should violate their expectations at this late date.

Negative sequences is a better design. But if we put it in it has to be a .mh_ profile option, defaulting to off.

On September 27, 2016 7:49:13 PM GMT+02:00, William Hay <address@hidden> wrote:

Thus spake Ken Hornstein:
I'd like to be able to distinguish between seen and unseen messages without
requiring the MDA to update the .mh_sequence file.  If the sequence was a list
of messages that were read rather than unread then only the interactive
mh commands would need to muck with it thereby avoiding a need for the MDA
to lock the .mh_sequence file.
 
 I think in practice too much code depends right now on the current sematics
 of the unseen sequence.

Which is why I suggested implemenation by checking for the sequence negation prefix
when using the unseen sequence.  The semantics remain the same although the implementation 
differs. 
Adding to the unseen sequence is translated to removing from
the seen sequence which would(at least potentially) be a no-op for new messages.

 
 Also, what's the big deal with locking the sequence file, anyway?  I think
 we've got that all straightened out.

You may have but not every mda even attempts to update the sequence.

William


Nmh-workers mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.