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

[David Levine]

Paul Fox wrote:

> 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.)

If we follow and enforce these rules:

1) Files in the message tree can only be named [1-9][0-9]*
   or `mhparam mh-sequences` (defaults to .mh_sequences).
   I think that's what an MH folder is.  The old
   documentation mentions "standard entries", but I can only
   find mh-sequences now.

2) Subfolders in the message tree cannot match the form
   specified in 1).  nmh doesn't currently enforce this now:
   some nmh programs (scan) complain about a subfolder named
   inbox/2000, but folder happily creates it (but should not).

   It's OK for a top-level message folder to be named
   [1-9][0-9]* (or even .mh_sequences, but I wouldn't recommend
   that).

3) Files and directories in the cache tree cannot match the
   form specified in 1).

Then you could do, e.g.,

  Path: Mail
  nmh-private-cache: Mail

to have them in the same directory.

David