Re: maildirs and Lines:
Brian D. Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 30 Jun 2000: 1) Extend fcc-hooks to allow piping to a filter program. I think that would be a good feature. Not just because of this, but for other uses too. 2) Add an "auto_add_maildir_lines" option. I would have expected that by default, Mutt always adds a Lines header when saving a message. Obviously if you're not getting that with Fcc's, then it doesn't work that way. :-) But at least if take a message without a Lines header and save it to a Maildir, I think the header does get added, doesn't it? *tests* No it doesn't. :-( I don't think this even needs to be an option, or is there some bad performance hit or something why the user might not want Mutt always to add a Lines header when writing a message to a Maildir? Does anyone know of a reason other than, "No one has submitted a patch yet," why one of these hasn't been added, or is there a better solution which I'm missing? I would guess it's the former... Mikko -- // Mikko Hänninen, aka. Wizzu // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // http://www.iki.fi/wiz/ // The Corrs list maintainer // net.freak // DALnet IRC operator / // Interests: roleplaying, Linux, the Net, fantasy scifi, the Corrs / The 5 year plan: In 5 years we'll make up a new plan. Or just re-use this one.
Re: maildirs and Lines:
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 01:48:26PM +0300, Mikko Hänninen wrote: Brian D. Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 30 Jun 2000: 2) Add an "auto_add_maildir_lines" option. ... I don't think this even needs to be an option, or is there some bad performance hit or something why the user might not want Mutt always to add a Lines header when writing a message to a Maildir? There is a performance hit. (I don't believe it is bad; see next paragraph.) You need to scan the whole message once in order to know how many lines it has, so you can write Lines:. In order to insert the header, you need to make a copy of the message, which means making two passes over the message or reading the entire message into memory while you count lines. (I believe the FAQ's procmail recipe reads the entire message into memory, but who can tell for sure exactly what it does. :) The python script I wrote yesterday to put in list-specific .qmail-... files also reads the entire message into memory and then outputs it after counting the lines.) Now, how do mboxes work again? :) The cost of rewriting an individual maildir message is nothing compared to the cost of adding a Status: header in a big mbox. I'd be happy to take the hit once per message in my maildir. In fact I already do, as it passes through the filter on delivery. I think that adding Lines: should be an option (I'm sure someone won't want it), but the default should be "yes". Brian
maildirs and Lines:
(I checked the archives, and although this has been asked before, no one had a good answer. Hopefully someone will have a better idea this time around, or I missed the answer in the archives.) I use maildirs, but I prefer to see lines rather than sizes in the message index. I've been using the procmail recipe to add Lines: for a long time, and it works well on incoming mail. This doesn't implicitly deal with outgoing e-mail, but in most cases bccing myself works well enough. The problem with bccing myself is that I get two copies when I send to mailing lists which return a copy to me. The easy solution is to remove the Bcc header when I send to a list, except it isn't that easy. I have been removing the Bcc manually, which is a pain and sometimes I forget. A few days ago I decided to try to make it automatic (I am using mutt after all...), and remembered why I haven't set this up earlier. send-hooks take effect after all of the recipient headers are set. Bcc is a recipient header. fcc-hooks don't have that ordering problem, but there is no way to pipe the message through procmail or any other program to add Lines:. I see two obvious solutions: 1) Extend fcc-hooks to allow piping to a filter program. 2) Add an "auto_add_maildir_lines" option. Does anyone know of a reason other than, "No one has submitted a patch yet," why one of these hasn't been added, or is there a better solution which I'm missing? Brian
