On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> > *Is* the mh driver "strictly IMAP semantics compiant" right now? Is the
> > fact that a) it forgets about all the flags and b) when reusing an open
> > connection it just forgets about all the
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
*Is* the mh driver "strictly IMAP semantics compiant" right now? Is the
fact that a) it forgets about all the flags and b) when reusing an open
connection it just forgets about all the deleted messages "strictly IMAP
semantics compliant"?
Y
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> > The problem I'm fighting against here is that when reopening a connection
> > the c-client's mh driver will loose knowledge of which messages were
> > removed.
>
> That problem is insurmountab
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
The problem I'm fighting against here is that when reopening a connection
the c-client's mh driver will loose knowledge of which messages were
removed.
That problem is insurmountable.
If it is a problem for you, the solution is simple: do n
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Mark Crispin wrote:
> mh is a dead format. The only purpose to support it is for compatibility
> with the past; and without that compatibility it isn't worth supporting.
Allthough mailsync beeing a tiny little tool lost somewhere in the huge
masses of OSS I do have 2-3 users
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Mark Crispin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> > But I don't understand what would be required to fix it. I can't see
> > the big picture. AFAI can see mh_ping is not changing the status of
> > messages.
>
> mh format does not have any place
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
Of course there was an implicit "except for cclient" in my question, I'm
well aware of the fact that cclient supports it. But it could also support
an enhanced mh format without problems. Anyhow, I'd be glad to use mx if it
were not officially abandoned (se
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:00:58 -0500 (CDT) David B Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DBF> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
DBF>
DBF> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DBF> >
DBF> > MC> No, there is also mx format.
DBF> >
DBF> > Sorry, I forgo
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> MC> No, there is also mx format.
>
> Sorry, I forgot about that one. But AFAIK it's very uncommon compared to
> mbox and mh. In fact, I don't know any programs using it
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MC> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
MC> > Sorry, I forgot about that one. But AFAIK it's very uncommon compared to
MC> > mbox and mh. In fact, I don't know any programs using it, do you?
MC>
MC> Well, gee,
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
Sorry, I forgot about that one. But AFAIK it's very uncommon compared to
mbox and mh. In fact, I don't know any programs using it, do you?
Well, gee, you're talking about a hack to extend mh format for c-client
that mh itself won't know about. That's a di
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MC> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
MC> > But MH is the only format among those supported by c-client (except
MC> > support for it is so poor that it is unusable in practice) which supports
MC> > folders hav
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
But MH is the only format among those supported by c-client (except
support for it is so poor that it is unusable in practice) which supports
folders having both messages and subfolders.
No, there is also mx format.
It is also "plain text" (and
so is prefer
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Mark Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MC> Some people have extended mh format to have a place to store flags, but
MC> this is effectively a different format. The only reason to use mh is to
MC> interoperate with the ancient mh program. Otherwise, you
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
But I don't understand what would be required to fix it. I can't see
the big picture. AFAI can see mh_ping is not changing the status of
messages.
mh format does not have any place to store flags permanently. Flags are
only maintained for
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> Second question:
> some of my MH users say that re-mail_open'ing a MH store will make it
> forget all all removal flags.
>
> Is this a known bug/problem/feature. Is there a work around or should I
> try to fix c-clients source wit
16 matches
Mail list logo
