Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

Norm wrote: > Maybe Contributions should have a tutorial script or two which > illustrate good ways to do that? How about adding this to the man page? EXAMPLES Basic usage To run mhfixmsg on the current message in the current folder, with default transformations to fix MIME

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

Ken Hornstein wrote: My reading of the maildir specification (such that it is) says that the filename before the colon should be unique. Although ... despite what people say, it seems like Maildir is not really designed to be a mail _store_ (someplace where you keep your mail long-term) but

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

>we would also have to forbid sortm. i think that way lies madness, since >UID's are often 7 and 8 digit numbers, bad for human consumption. +1 >the earlier suggestion to maintain a mapping between message numbers as >seen by the MH toolset and UID's seen by IMAP, makes sense to me. though

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

Michael Richardson wrote: Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >> So, each message has a (U?)UID? Are the integers a subset of that? > UIDs increase monotonically within a folder. Sequence numbers are just > the index number into the dynamic array that represents

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

So, if we forbid "pack", we can have UIDs rather than sequence numbers? No, if you change the UIDs you just change the UIDVALIDITY of the folder. RFC3501 explains this quite clearly. Section 2.3.1.1 describes UID and UIDVALIDITY. Section 2.3.1.2 describes message sequence numbers.

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

Ken Hornstein writes: > >Let me explain my larger view. I know lots of people still want to be >able to use Unix text processing utilities on a MH store. But I hate >to be the the one who has to explain this ... that hasn't been a realistic >goal since the advent of MIME. The

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >> So, each message has a (U?)UID? Are the integers a subset of that? > UIDs increase monotonically within a folder. Sequence numbers are just > the index number into the dynamic array that represents the current set > of messages

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

So, each message has a (U?)UID? Are the integers a subset of that? UIDs increase monotonically within a folder. Sequence numbers are just the index number into the dynamic array that represents the current set of messages visible withing a folder. UIDs never change (for all practical

Re: [Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh

Ken> I am saying that we have people who want to use the nmh tools with both Ken> IMAP and Maildir mailstores. So making the nmh tools work with those Ken> mailstores would be useful. .. with migration via refile between different store types .. that sounds cool.. C.

Re: [Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh

>>4) In terms of alternate mail stores, be they Maildir or IMAP (I think >>those are the two major candidates now, right?), I think those ideas >>are interesting. The #1 problem with those ideas is how to map MH >>message numbers (which can range 1-MAXINT, with holes) to the internal >>key used

Re: [Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh

Ken Hornstein writes: > >4) In terms of alternate mail stores, be they Maildir or IMAP (I think >those are the two major candidates now, right?), I think those ideas >are interesting. The #1 problem with those ideas is how to map MH >message numbers (which can range 1-MAXINT,

[Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh

So, since my simple question about a new release spawned a whole thread about the future direction of nmh I wanted to create a distinct thread to discuess those ideas. If you're interested in commenting on future ideas for nmh, this is the place to do it. I am first going on the assumption that

Re: [Nmh-workers] New release, v2?

On 9 March 2016 at 9:17, Ken Hornstein wrote: > So, in short: cut a 1.7, yes or no? Anything people would like in there? > My list is: > > - Incorporate XOAUTH support > - Fix character conversion on message bodies (right now it aborts if it > cannot convert characters to

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 9:19:57 PM PST Ken Hornstein wrote: > ... I hate > to be the the one who has to explain this ... that hasn't been a realistic > goal since the advent of MIME. The model that "email is text" just > isn't valid anymore. i know. which is why i don't see much value in the

[Nmh-workers] New release, v2?

Everyone, I'd like to focus in this email JUST on the idea of a new release. I'll send another email regarding future directions so we can keep these discussion separate. So, in short: cut a 1.7, yes or no? Anything people would like in there? My list is: - Incorporate XOAUTH support - Fix

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: >> message numbers are, indeed, "the problem." when i asked mark crispen >> why IMAP was so hostile to the message numbering concepts of MH, he >> muttered something about MM. > But he did buy into, and accept, the UID concept. We had

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

Ken Hornstein wrote: > them) to Maildir filenames. That seems solvable somehow. But the main > gain of Maildir seems to be lack of locking requirements ... am I > missing something? Is it more about interoperability with other > software? It's mostly about

Re: [Nmh-workers] Maybe time for a new release?

+5 for a new release. Ken Hornstein wrote: >> No, that's not true. We could decode on inc(1) to UTF-8. Every other >> MUA (effectively) does that these days. > Sigh. That doesn't help with image/jpeg, video/mpeg, application/pdf > ... all of those things which