From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <c49bcff7ad0f7071cc5ebba350f4f89b@swtch.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: acme mail
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:29:01 +0000
In-Reply-To: <75a40fbd082e325150a743aa7bc36070@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 037b449a-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> s/mime and pgp email dislike it when the body is changed.
> this isn't something i've used extensively so i don't know how
> much of a problem this might be.
> 
> would it be better of the raw file remained an exact
> representation of the original mail?

there is a difference between the in-memory representation
and the representation presented by the "raw" file. 
i agree - the raw file should present the raw message bytes,
with no indenting of from lines.  however, the internal
representation used by upas/fs does indent from lines,
and the pop3 and imap4 code in upas/fs needs to convert
the downloaded messages into that representation for
consistency with the rest of the system.

and upas/fs needs to process that representation to present
the "raw" file.

this is exactly what i said two or three messages ago.

russ