On Monday, 12 September 2005 at 16:34, René Clerc wrote: > *bump* > > Brendan, and / or Thomas, > > Can you make a judgement about this patch? I decided to bump this > thread because, as I've noted, nobody has responded to David's > message. Furthermore, it's the only patch I use that has not been > applied to CVS.. > > Most mailers have this functionality, e.g. through the display of a > paper clip or something like that. I would *really* find this > useful. I like the idea too. I just read the patch, and it seems sounds, but maybe somewhat overengineered? Does it really need attach-allow et al, or can we just have some "sensible defaults" eg ignore inline parts and pgp attachments. Actually the defaults in the patch look pretty reasonable, I'd be tempted to just hard-code them to save config bandwidth. > Thinking about it some more: would it make sense to alter this patch > somewhat, and to: > > - not automatically parse the tree for Maildir and IMAP mailfolders, > but display a "?" (or something like that, or nothing at all) > instead? > > - cache the attachment information for these types of folders? I think it's probably worthwhile to either cache the number or simply not throw out the parsed content, depending on the memory usage of the latter.
Attachment:
pgpSH7EHmwTdi.pgp
Description: PGP signature