Hi Wietse, et all.
Not sure whether this is known already or not,... in any case I think
it's quite critical..
I recently stumbled over several MUAs/tools (e.g. Evolution, getmail)
that have their problems with the mbox format, namely by corruption
stored or imported mail in not quoting From_ li
Christoph Anton Mitterer:
> Hi Wietse, et all.
>
>
> Not sure whether this is known already or not,... in any case I think
> it's quite critical..
Postfix implements traditional UNIX mbox format and locks.
Theoretically it is possible to add a support bazillion variants.
Unfortunatelt, there ar
Hey Wietse.
On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 22:33 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Postfix implements traditional UNIX mbox format and locks.
Yeah clear...
> Theoretically it is possible to add a support bazillion variants.
Well... I only know about 4 variants, of which only one is really broken
(mboxo).
>
Christoph Anton Mitterer:
[blah blah evangelism blah]
> So... what exactly speaks against switching to it? :)
Breaking compatibility? Over my dead body. However, providing a new
parameter that is BACKWARDS-COMPATIBLE BY DEFAULT would be a
possibility,
> If it's just the time needed to write a pat
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 17:00 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Breaking compatibility?
Could you explain why you think it would break compatibility?
AFAIU, mboxrd just means that you also quote lines like
>From foo
to
>>From foo
(and the same for more trailing ">").
I wouldn't see how an existing clien
Oh and one more thing...
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 17:00 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Breaking compatibility? Over my dead body.
You always seem to put high priority in having the most secure and
stable way in your decisions...
Even if there was some major compatibility issue with mboxrd (which I
do
On 29/10/12 10:14, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Even if there was some major compatibility issue with mboxrd (which I
> don't see yet)... wouldn't data integrity of the user's mail be of the
> "highest" priority?
>
> As said, with mboxo one has basically no chance at all to recover the
> orig
Hi Peter.
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 12:36 +1300, Peter wrote:
> You know you could just use a different delivery agent that supports the
> mbox format you want. Nothing says that you have to use local(8).
Yeah of course...
But my wish to improve this is not for myself... neither do I use mbox*
(well
Am 29.10.2012 00:46, schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer:
> I just stumbled across this issue with mboxo recently and it seems that
> most users are not familiar with it (or that there are actually several
> mbox formats).
Well, if you'd looked at the date of your sources, you'd have known that
othe
Hey Matthias.
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 21:45 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Well, if you'd looked at the date of your sources, you'd have known that
> others have failed establishing alternatives to what DJB or Rahul Dhesi
> or whoever dubbed "mboxo" in nearly two decades.
Well there are several pro
Christoph Anton Mitterer:
> Anyway, would you know any technical or compatibility reasons that
> prevent local(8) from using mboxrd?
A new parameter to select the mailbox type is OK, however the default
setting will remain 100% backwards compatible.
Wietse
Am 29.10.2012 22:05, schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer:
> Hey Matthias.
>
> On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 21:45 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
>> Well, if you'd looked at the date of your sources, you'd have known that
>> others have failed establishing alternatives to what DJB or Rahul Dhesi
>> or whoever
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 02:06 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> (I am aware of Wietse's reply to the message I am quoting.)
Yeah... so ongoing discussion on the issue itself is rather pointless,
nevertheless...
> > Well quoted printable encoding is of course a way around this, but
> > similarly as yo
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 02:06:42AM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 29.10.2012 22:05, schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer:
snip
> Now, if you are asking for reasons why local(8) is prevented from
> using mboxrd, or from switching to mboxrd by default, you will have
> to allow the question held up
Christoph Anton Mitterer:
> On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 02:06 +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > (I am aware of Wietse's reply to the message I am quoting.)
> Yeah... so ongoing discussion on the issue itself is rather pointless,
> nevertheless...
I repeat my constructive solution: contribute code and do
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 09:24 -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I repeat my constructive solution: contribute code and documentation
> that makes the mailbox format configurable.
I had noted below in the email before, that I'll need to take a loot at
the code first, before I can decide whether I can make
16 matches
Mail list logo
