Re: [Nmh-workers] mime-aware filtering?

[Paul Fox]

paul vixie wrote:
 > On 2012-06-26 3:19 AM, Jerrad Pierce wrote:
 > > Sorry for the premature reply.
 > >
 > > I see now that Paul did understand my idea.
 > > I can underatd that some might not want duplicate
 > > content, but that's what I proposed it be optional.
 > > A temporary cache does not allow for indexing.
 > 
 > i'm ok with that. disk space is cheap. the index can keep copies of the
 > content. the mh hook system can keep them in synch. unless you have
 > multiple terabytes of stored e-mail you'll never feel the cost of the
 > second copy.
 > 
 > > Keeping it in Mail means you have whichever
 > > decoded messages you want greppable/indexable;
 > > be it done to all on inc, or manually for a select
 > > few. Then, when you remove them message, the parts
 > > get automagically wiped out by rmm.
 > 
 > i don't see how to support indexing on a read-only mail store if we're
 > interleaving the files. while bboards may be long gone usenet is still
 > out there, and imap too.

why couldn't an indexer know the difference between the message file
and the content cache?

anyway:  i think i still prefer the idea that the content cache
directories be kept in the message tree.  but i also understand why
one might want them separate.  if the idea is that the message tree
and the cache tree are roughly isomorphic, i'll bet that could be made
a per-user choice, as long as the content directories were really
named "53.mime/" and not simply "53/" -- i.e., the messages and the
mime-dirs could either live in the same tree or not, since they use
different parts of the namespace.  (but clients certainly would need
to be careful not to assume one model or the other.)

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 56.7 degrees)