On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Dale Woolridge wrote: >On 26-Feb-2003 08:55 Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: >| Maildir/Maildir++ standards, I can't make it all configurable. The thought > The extension of Maildir into Maildir++ is a wholly courier-based idea > though adopted by other applications. I can't really say I think of > Maildir++ as a gold standard. Maildir is simply an object which handles > the (theoretically as intended anyway) reliable delivery of mail.
I don't think it's a golden standard either. > Certainly, uw-imapd can be/has been patched to support Maildir without > the baggage of Maildir++. The filesystem already provides a standard > way of supporting submailboxes. Yup. But the filesystem doesn't say how INBOX/hello maps to the file system, and neither does Maildir. Since Binc IMAP currently uses Maildir++, and deviance would break interoperability with other Maildir++ apps, I don't want that. But read on. >| has struct me to make the maildir translation configurable through some >| sort of a scripting language, but that would mean that Binc allows >| noncompliant maildirs. > I'm presuming you mean "noncompliant Maildir++'s". Thy assumption is correct. ;) > Some features are part of maildir proper (as per djb) and others > are extensions (Maildir++) made by Courier (any others?). Maildir > was designed for reliable mail delivery, while Maildir++ was designed > to extend (abuse) a Maildir to support an IMAP (+ other mail subsystems) > implementation. In what way does Maildir++ abuse the Maildir format? In what way does Maildir++ do anything to improve IMAP support for Maildir? >| I think what you are looking for is support for mailbox formats other than >| Maildir, such as mbox, which allows a whole mailbox to be stored in one >| file alone. This server sadly doesn't support other formats than Maildir. > Nope. I want Maildir. I use Maildir for my mail delivery. I could > use it for archival purposes too, but I don't. I don't use Maildir++, > nor do I care for it. I'm already using an IMAP server that has been > patched to support Maildir (but not Maildir++). I deliver my mail > the way I want, structuring it as I please, within the confines of my > filesystem. Can you sketch a scheme for us which allows for a consistent definition of how to create Maildir mailboxes in Binc IMAP, which is independent of Maildir++? This goes to everyone really - if Binc allowed the user or admin to define how mailboxes and submailboxes are created, we could have a special setting that was exactly Maildir++. User contributions could then allow maps to alternate paths. Dale, I think this thread is turning out to be a good idea. :-) > Maildir++ forces me to restructure my mail the way it wants, using > names I don't like, and polluting my Maildirs. Sure, I could > change all my mail folders to fit into the Maildir++ scheme, but > all my mail is already there, the way I like it, waiting for an > IMAP server to scoop it up. A patched uw-imapd doesn't have trouble > with this. I was hoping Binc wouldn't either. I really don't want > to run uw-imapd, but I'd rather it than use Maildir++. I understand your concern. I pass the ball on to the community. Andy -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | Nil desperandum
