Re: Maildir backend

["Jérôme Marant" <jerome.marant@fr.thalesgroup.com>]

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:40:27AM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@fr.thalesgroup.com> wrote:
> >   I've tried nnmaildir but I think that it is not satisfactory
> >   since it takes a lot of resources (mostly heavy duplication of
> >   files)
> 
> What do you mean?

  I mean that it creates a .nnmaildir directory in the mail box
  directory. And it seems that all files from the cur directory
  are duplicated there. I would like the backend to avoid that
  duplication (even if I run a XFS filesystem).

> 
> >   it is pretty slow (the more files there are the slower
> >   it starts).
> 
> Yes, I've got some ideas to improve that.

  Avoid file duplication would be the first improvement I guess.

> 
> >   and renaming files with respect to their status (read,
> >   signed, and so on).
> 
> I don't think the standard maildir flags-in-filename scheme is
> sufficient to accomodate all of Gnus's marks (and certainly not
> user-defined marks).  We could have a different flags-in-filename
> scheme that would be more accomodating, but it would be unrecognizable
> to other maildir readers.  Would that still be worthwhile for you?
> What would be the advantages over nnmaildir's current mark system?

  I'm not that sure that a flags-in-filename scheme would be better.
  I'm not even waiting for any compatibility with other MUA.

  Why aren't directories new, cur and tmp plus a marks file (a kind
  of index file used to store the status of messages) enough to
  handle maildir ?

  Cheers,

-- 
Jérôme Marant