Re: [PATCH] Following symlinks when deleting mail
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:46:05AM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> >Tamotsu Takahashi wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:14:13AM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> >>
> [--snip--]
> >> "Similar options for <copy> and <save> functions?"
> >
> >Actually, I like that idea quite a lot... They do make sense if one
> >thinks of this patch as a sort of "poor man's virtual folders" type
> >thing... (perhaps just combine them all into one
> >'poor_mans_virtual_folders' option?). It should just be a question of
> >inserting a symlink resolution function call in appropriate places for
> >MH/Maildir mailboxes.
>
> From testing it appears that mutt actually *does* follow symlinks when
> copying/saving messages -- it seems to actually open the messages and
> read their contents instead of just blindly copying files, so this
> happens as a byproduct of mutt generally being ignorant of symlinks.
>
> So having an unlink_follow would actually bring deletion in line with
> general mutt behavior. :)
Good. Now you sound more reasonable.
I have one concern;
Mutt will have two types of deletion (following to symlinks and not)
after your patch is applied. Then, what about "copying/saving symlinks,
not their real files"? Couldn't it be useful in some cases?
> I know, it could still be done using your pass-to-command patch, but
> this patch makes it is less error-prone for users, and they don't have
> to use different 'delete' commands depending on whether they're in a
> "symlink" mailbox or not... for me that makes it worth it.
I agree.
--
tamo