Re: nnmaildir & expiry (again..)

[raphael.berbain@free.fr (Raphaël Berbain)]

prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:

> raphael.berbain@free.fr (Raphaël Berbain) wrote:
>> The problem is, after being expired the article appears unread again
>> in the target group.
>
> If you want all the articles in the target group to be marked as read,
> you could set (always-marks . ['(read)]) in the group parameters.

I have thought about that, but the doc says it's an experimental
feature and likely to change ; Also AFAICT it doesn't alter the actual
stored-on-disk marks ;  And last but not least, I do not want all
articles in those groups to be read.  Well, not for all concerned
groups anyways.  it's a good work-around for some of them, however.

>> What should be the right behavior ?
>
> Copying all the marks (except 'expire) from the original article would
> probably be good.

Agreed.

>> Regardless of this, I think both backends should behave in the same
>> way.
>
> Yes, the backend interface ought to be redesigned to put less (i.e.,
> no) policy decisions in the backends.  But that's a big job.

Agreed too.

While I have your attention (warning, subject hijacking + feature
request coming..), nnmaildir stores marks quite unusually compared to
other maildir-aware MUA.  It uses files in
<maildir>/.nnmaildir/marks/<mark>/file.  Others tend to use the info
part of the message filename.

What is the rationale behind this design ?  The only reason I could
think of is that Gnus has more marks than some other MUAs/imap
servers, perhaps with some mark semantics confusion kicking in.
However, it would be useful to me to get nnmaildir to handle marks
this way as well (at least the 'read' mark) because my maildirs are
also served through imap.  I think I once heard about a script (perl,
IIRC) that did some kind of sync between both systems, but I can't
find it again.