On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 01:36:32PM +0200, Andreas Aardal Hanssen wrote: >On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Lukas Beeler wrote: >>There is nothing to be read differently. A unique name can be >>anything that does not contain a ":" and does not start with a ".". > >Agreed.. > >>> Binc IMAP skips filenames with a messed up format. Wether an application >>> skips filenames without the required format or not, is not a part of the >>> spec. >>Where do you read what the required format is? >>http://cr.yp.to/proto/maildir.html >>States two possibilities to create a unique name. >>Binc imapd uses neither of them, which is fine, because the name >>just has to be unique. > >Nod nod nod. Binc IMAP skips these files, but it should actually record >them. I'll add logic to the next version to handle this case better. My >bad. > >>Everybody makes mistakes ;) > >Right-o. Thanks for reporting this bug and not crippling under my extreme >influence. ;-) > >Andy :-)
Well, actually, I reported the bug. :-) I appreciate all your responses. It turns out I was using an older version of Procmail that was known to construct filenames of a different form than the examples offered in the maildir spec. So I upgraded to the newest version which does construct filenames similar to the examples, and which Binc IMAP can read. Since this fixes the problem moving forward I decided to rename the files. The easiest way I found to do this was to use Mutt to tag all the files in a given maildir and them "save" them to the same maildir. In the process Mutt renames them while keeping the flags the same. Given that the maildir spec just requires uniqness, I think your plan to modify Binc IMAP is a good one. I've always wanted to name my emails in the form timestamp.from_address,flags using timestamp-2, timestamp-3, etc. for possible duplicates. :-) Thanks for your help! Carl
