>> If it's not hard to fix, would make sense to do it before 1.7.1 goes
>> out the door!
>
>True, though that could be influenced by how long it's been then without
>folks minding. I've not had time to do anything on it; got a gig at
>the moment that pays more than nmh. :-)
It turns out this wa
On Fri, 09 Feb 2018 23:32:30 -0500 Ken Hornstein wrote:
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >> If it's not hard to fix, would make sense to do it before 1.7.1 goes
> >> out the door!
> >
> >True, though that could be influenced by how long it's been then without
> >folks minding. I've not had time to do anyt
>I don't know IMAP, but is there an IMAP server out there that will be
>happy when I overwrite a hunk of ~/mail/inbox/42 in place? IMAP's a
>textual protocol so we'd be switching one lot of text parsing in scan
>for another. Would pick(1), when talking to `our' IMAP implementation,
>make use of e
Ken Hornstein wrote:
...> - Messages in IMAP are immutable, so if you overwrite
~/mail/inbox/42, in
theory you should get a new UID for that message. But maybe our "internal"
IMAP implementation wouldn't care. I do wonder how UW-IMAP deals with
that, since it claims to be able to se
oops.
Ken Hornstein wrote:
...
- Messages in IMAP are immutable, so if you overwrite ~/mail/inbox/42, in
theory you should get a new UID for that message. But maybe our "internal"
IMAP implementation wouldn't care. I do wonder how UW-IMAP deals with
that, since it claims to be able to
