Drew Raines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The questions is: is it safe to do this when these "info" fields >> mean something completely different to an MUA than they do to >> TMDA? My gut tells me it isn't. > > I'm not clear on what exactly you want the MUA to do with them. I > don't see functionality with any stock MUA beyond viewing and > deleting messages in the pending queue. If that indeed is all we > can do, then the naming conventions don't need to be terribly > complex.
The issue is that it's unclear when an MUA might toggle a certain flag on and thus change the meaning of the message for TMDA. i.e, it's not safe to use `2,F' or `2,T' for a TMDA-specific purpose, when an MUA might toggle these on for a completely different reason leading to unpredictable or incorrect behavior in TMDA. > This seems unnecessary since you apparently have a more elaborate > directory/filename scheme cooking up in another message. I just am not comfortable with using MUA-specific info flags for a tool that isn't an MUA. I think this is an accident waiting to happen. Do you not see what my concern is here? The maildir folder method discussed in another message seems much more straightforward and much less prone to MUA conflicts. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
