On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Mark Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote: > > Is there any specific reason, c-client calls the mh inbox #mhinbox and not > > INBOX like all the other INBOXes of all the other formats? > > Yes, there is a specific reason. > > Oh? You would like to know the reason? > > In c-client, MH format is far less functional than other formats. Let's > suppose that MH format responds to the INBOX name. Then the following > little scenario plays out: > > If someone experimented with MH years ago, stopped using it, but then > failed to remove all vestiges of MH support, a trap is left to spring the > moment the user uses any c-client base application. > > One form of the trap is that the user's mail disappeared in their non > c-client application. The other form of the trap is that things (such as > sticky flags) mysteriously do not work as advertised and cause substantial > difficulties > > Now lets suppose that that Someone is very high up, that when the trap > sprung on that Someone it was a Major Issue; and that when the cause was > finally determined, Someone Else got called on the carpet. > > #mhinbox is not going to change. > > > It's inconvenient as would force me to do #mhinbox<->INBOX mapping in > > mailsync if I wanted to do things properly. > > That's one approach. The other is not to have any such knowledge in the > first place.
Mhhh don't know much what to do out of this. Mailsync _is_ supporting #mh and curiously enough some of the most important contributors of mailsync are using it - so out of those political reasons I'll not drop support of it - but anyway - mailsync is not trying to hide c-client's functionality - it just gives the user whatever c-client offers. Since I'd like to document the issue I'll probably just drop your mail, that's specific and cryptic at the same time into the documentation... :-/ *t -- Bad times for dictators. At least in the oil regions. Goedart Palm
