>>>>> "USM" == USM Bish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
USM> deliberately avoided this to prevent confusion. Description
USM> would then be needed. Besides, 99% of folk stick to these two
USM> types only for mailing. For academic reasons, I should have
USM> included the third type. My bad.
I don't think Maildir users are that negligible. qmail supports only
Maildir - other formats require non-DJB patches - and hence I'd say a
sizeable chunk of qmail users would be on Maildir format. Plus its
inherent advantages when it comes to NFS cleanliness, mailbox quota
implementation etc. make Maildirs a favourite with sysadmins (my ex
company was on sendmail+maildir/courier imapd).
USM> AFAIK, Handling of MH type folders under mutt is pretty
USM> recent and has come after ver 1.2.4. I am not certain if it
mutt 1.2.4 can hardly be called recent - it was released in July
2000.
USM> Agreed. It would still require conversion to a standard mbox
USM> which neither netscape nor mutt will do. I tried to make a
USM> converter. The variability in prefixes for atts was a prob &
USM> I gave it up ....
There is no conversion involved. Netscape mail uses standard mbox
format. It can be read *without* any coversion using
mutt/pine/whatever.
And there is no variability (as you put it ;-) in prefixes for
attachments either. Everything is documented in RFC 2822.
Binand
_______________________________________________
linux-india-help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-india-help
