On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 04:58:59PM +0300, Emanuele Giaquinta wrote: > On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 08:20:38PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > I'll put this on my list of things to look at. To be honest, if Michael > > wasn't convinced, my pre-disposition will be against, but I'll look more > > closely when I get some time. > > Ok. I don't understand why you have this negative bias based on no > followup from Michael though.
Well, because that's not what you said. You said you did receive a round of feedback, but then he stopped responding. I can't find the thread in the mutt-dev archive, so if you have a pointer to the conversation that might be useful. I wasn't around for any conversations about the Lines and Content-Length headers, but since it never was addressed I can only imagine there must have been quite lengthy arguments and it's one of the topics everyone grew tired of arguing about. Reopening old flamewars isn't something I'm keen to do a few months into becoming maintainer. :-/ > > One quick comment though: > > > On message copy, write Status header only if the format of the > > > destination mailbox is mbox or mmdf. > > > > I believe MH uses the Status header for "old", doesn't it? > > The MH format supports unseen/flagged/replied flags only, which are > stored in a .mh_sequences file. Now, I am not sure what the intended > behaviour is, but there seems to be some inconsistency in the MH driver > wrt "old": Thank you for the analysis. So, yes, mh in at least some capacity is using the Status header to record "old", but it sounds like it is buggy. It seems like it would be better to try and fix the bugs than to strip the header out. I've only minimally dived into the mh code, so I'll have to look into it. Or, if you have the inclination to try and fix the problems you listed with changing flags and editing the message, that would be great too. -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
