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

[Paul Fox]

paul wrote:
 > On 2012-06-26 11:45 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
 > > 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.)
 > 
 > lots of code (here i'm thinking of uw-imap) makes the assumption that if
 > there's a directory then it's a folder. such names need not be
 > all-numeric or semi-numeric. you'd have to preface the name with a dot
 > ('.') to prevent it from opendir()'ing or even chdir()'ing. i see this
 > as an unfortunate and unnecessary burden on code whose assumptions have
 > been valid for a long time.

ah, good point.  i never ever use nested folders, and so didn't even
consider that issue.  and i also wasn't considering non-nmh clients
of the tree.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 64.6 degrees)