At 23:01 -0500 06 Mar 2002, "Michael P. Soulier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 06/03/02 Aaron Schrab did speaketh: > > > You should not have mail delivered to compressed folders. If you do so, > > you are almost sure to lose mail eventually. > > I don't understand why it's any different than standard procmail delivery. > Procmail should still synchronize via a lockfile, yes? Please explain.
Even with the compressed folder patch, mutt can't really deal with compressed folders. The patch simply tells mutt how to uncomress a mailbox into a temporary file and (if necessary) recompress it when done. If mutt needs to write back any changes that you have made to the temporary file it will blow away any new messages that have been written to it. Even if mutt would put a lock on it for the whole time you're using the compressed folder, after about 15 minutes procmail would consider the lock to be stale and remove it. Locking a mail file is not appropriate to cover this type of situation, it should only be done while a program is actively using the mailfile. The only other alternative would be for mutt to detect that the compressed version of the mailbox had changed and give you the opportunity to either save the uncompressed version or lose any changes that you had to that and just go with the compressed version. The compressed folders patch is really only intended to be used on archival mailboxes. -- Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.execpc.com/~aarons/ ...if you are lifeform that is not based on chemistry, I apologize in advance. -- Larry Wall <http://www.perl.com/pub/1999/08/onion/talk1.html>
