Tamotsu Takahashi wrote: [--snip--]
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?
The only scenario I can think of offhand would be if the user were using manually updated symlink mailboxes in conjunction with an archive -- effectively using it as a means to saving space and avoiding modified messages getting out of sync.
Some complications might arise from this. Example: what should mutt do when a symlink is copied (in the mode you describe) into an MBOX. Should the real file be duplicated? Should mutt flat-out refuse? There probably isn't one "right" answer, meaning we'd get more options...
Bottom line, however, is that I'm nowhere near familiar enough with the mutt codebase to have any idea of how many places would need changes and precisely what those changes should be...
My mutt usage only warrants the 'unlink_follow=true' behavior, so I'm not particularly motivated to become more familiar with it, either... :)
Cheers,
--
Bardur Arantsson
<bardur@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
<bardur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- I took the liberty of fertilizing your caviar.
Zoidberg, 'Futurama'