Paul Fox wrote: > why couldn't an indexer know the difference between the message file > and the content cache? > > 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.)
If we follow and enforce these rules: 1) Files in the message tree can only be named [1-9][0-9]* or `mhparam mh-sequences` (defaults to .mh_sequences). I think that's what an MH folder is. The old documentation mentions "standard entries", but I can only find mh-sequences now. 2) Subfolders in the message tree cannot match the form specified in 1). nmh doesn't currently enforce this now: some nmh programs (scan) complain about a subfolder named inbox/2000, but folder happily creates it (but should not). It's OK for a top-level message folder to be named [1-9][0-9]* (or even .mh_sequences, but I wouldn't recommend that). 3) Files and directories in the cache tree cannot match the form specified in 1). Then you could do, e.g., Path: Mail nmh-private-cache: Mail to have them in the same directory. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
