On 2012-06-26 11:45 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
> anyway: i think i still prefer the idea that the content cache
> directories be kept in the message tree. but i also understand why
> one might want them separate. if the idea is that the message tree
> and the cache tree are roughly isomorphic, i'll bet that could be made
> a per-user choice, as long as the content directories were really
> named "53.mime/" and not simply "53/" -- i.e., the messages and the
> mime-dirs could either live in the same tree or not, since they use
> different parts of the namespace. (but clients certainly would need
> to be careful not to assume one model or the other.)
lots of code (here i'm thinking of uw-imap) makes the assumption that if
there's a directory then it's a folder. such names need not be
all-numeric or semi-numeric. you'd have to preface the name with a dot
('.') to prevent it from opendir()'ing or even chdir()'ing. i see this
as an unfortunate and unnecessary burden on code whose assumptions have
been valid for a long time.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
