Re: Rocco Rutte 2007-02-26 <20070226165143.GA22499@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. But can someone remind me what > >the objections were to the compressed-folder patch? I think the main objection is that it breaks if the compressed folder is opened while the compressed file is modified (e.g. new mail). Writing back changes from mutt will overwrite the compressed version. As the main use is for archive folders which either don't get new mail or will be opened read-only I don't think that restriction is too bad. (And there could be a check that the mtime of the folder is still the same - which might already be there, didn't check.) > I don't really like the implementation because it enforces mbox. It > would be much nicer (and have a much better design) if it could just > uncompress the file and let mutt itself decide what to do with it. Some time ago I tried to make it read mboxes given an URL with a sh+wget wrapper which failed because http://bugs.debian.org/123&mbox=yes is not a local file, but that could be fixed. Generally I would prefer the addition of the (working) patch over delaying it indefinitely until someone implements something more elegant. Christoph -- cb@xxxxxxxx | http://www.df7cb.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature