nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Jan Vroonhof]

I have to go out to eat so I'm not supplying patches (I may be
later, so this is partly just a reminder for myself)

1. Shouldn't nnfolder-generate-active-file ignore files with extention
  nnmail-procmail-suffix ? Is there a nnfolder-regenerate-active-file
  command wich just recomputes the nummers?

2. I tried to use a compressed nnfolder file by gzip'ing one of my
   folders. As I sort of expected it didn't work. It seems you have
   rename the folder blabla.gz. May be it is a good idea to have a
   nnfolder-also-try-extensions to be used by nnfolder-group-pathname?
   Of course nnfolder-generate-active-file would have to strip these
   extensions off files too.

Jan

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Andy Eskilsson]

/ Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch> wrote:
|
| 2. I tried to use a compressed nnfolder file by gzip'ing one of my
|    folders. As I sort of expected it didn't work. It seems you have
|    rename the folder blabla.gz. May be it is a good idea to have a
|    nnfolder-also-try-extensions to be used by nnfolder-group-pathname?
|    Of course nnfolder-generate-active-file would have to strip these
|    extensions off files too.

/me starts thinking.. hmm doesn't jka-compr have some functionality to
automatically try the file.gz if it doesn't find file?.. or was that
jka-aux..

I searched through the docs for jka, gzip, compr, but didn't find
anything, maybe something to add?? 

And uh.. does compression work on the other backends too?

	/Andy

-- 
 Hi I am an alien .sig, and at the moment I am having sex to your
 mind, by looking at your smile I can see that you like it.

 Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
 See <http://www.fukt.hk-r.se/~flognat/mail/> for more info.

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch> writes:

> 1. Shouldn't nnfolder-generate-active-file ignore files with extention
>   nnmail-procmail-suffix ? 

I don't think so...

>   Is there a nnfolder-regenerate-active-file command wich just
>   recomputes the nummers?

Nope.

> 2. I tried to use a compressed nnfolder file by gzip'ing one of my
>    folders. As I sort of expected it didn't work. It seems you have
>    rename the folder blabla.gz. May be it is a good idea to have a
>    nnfolder-also-try-extensions to be used by nnfolder-group-pathname?
>    Of course nnfolder-generate-active-file would have to strip these
>    extensions off files too.

Yes, this should happen automatically.  It's on the todo list.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Jan Vroonhof]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch> writes:
> 
> > 1. Shouldn't nnfolder-generate-active-file ignore files with extention
> >   nnmail-procmail-suffix ? 
> 
> I don't think so...

Then what's use of having a suffix? (n-g-a-f is way too aggressive for
me anyway but I think it should at least be possible to have all mail
groups related stuff in one directory)

Jan

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch> writes:

> > > 1. Shouldn't nnfolder-generate-active-file ignore files with extention
> > >   nnmail-procmail-suffix ? 
> > 
> > I don't think so...
> 
> Then what's use of having a suffix? 

To let nnmail know which files to suck in.  `nnmail-procmail-suffix'
isn't used by nnfolder for anything, and I don't see any reason why it
should.

> (n-g-a-f is way too aggressive for me anyway but I think it should
> at least be possible to have all mail groups related stuff in one
> directory)

Probably not.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Jan Vroonhof]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> > Then what's use of having a suffix? 
> 
> To let nnmail know which files to suck in.  `nnmail-procmail-suffix'
> isn't used by nnfolder for anything, and I don't see any reason why it
> should.

nnmail could just as well suck in a file in the procmail directory
with same name as the group. I mean there is no need for a suffix if
you keep a separate directory.

 bal/bla/Mail/spool/group.spool

is tautological.

For me at least the whole purpose of having the extention is that you
CAN ceep the spool and the actual folder together. This is a somewhat moot
moint if you use a directory based backend, but I think it looks tidy
with nnfolder.

> 
> > (n-g-a-f is way too aggressive for me anyway but I think it should
> > at least be possible to have all mail groups related stuff in one
> > directory)
> 
> Probably not.

I like it that way and works just fine as along as you don't use n-g-a-f

For me it would super if nnfolder-g-a-f would just create a gpoup
blabla for any blabla.spool files it didn't know about and forget
about the other files

Jan

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch> writes:

> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> 
> > > Then what's use of having a suffix? 
> > 
> > To let nnmail know which files to suck in.  `nnmail-procmail-suffix'
> > isn't used by nnfolder for anything, and I don't see any reason why it
> > should.
> 
> nnmail could just as well suck in a file in the procmail directory
> with same name as the group. I mean there is no need for a suffix if
> you keep a separate directory.

You may keep other files in the spool directory that aren't related to
mail thingies at all.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Jan Vroonhof]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

> > nnmail could just as well suck in a file in the procmail directory
> > with same name as the group. I mean there is no need for a suffix if
> > you keep a separate directory.
> 
> You may keep other files in the spool directory that aren't related to
> mail thingies at all.

Right, that's the whole point. I do have other files in there and also
my nnfolder-folders. To put it the other way round I have other files
in my nnfolder directory (including the correspendoning .spool files).
But that isn't "allowed" because greedy nnfolder-generate-active takes
all. This leads to having both the folder and the folder.spool file
folders which is definitely not-a-good-thing(TM). So I can have other
junk in my spool directory, but not other junk in my nnfolder
directory. That is unfair!

Jan

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch> writes:

> So I can have other junk in my spool directory,

Yes.

> but not other junk in my nnfolder directory.

You can, but you have to remember that generating the active file will
be greedy.

> That is unfair!

It's two unrelated issues.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Christopher Davis]

JV>  == Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch>
LMI> == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>

 JV> nnmail could just as well suck in a file in the procmail directory
 JV> with same name as the group. I mean there is no need for a suffix if
 JV> you keep a separate directory.

 LMI> You may keep other files in the spool directory that aren't related
 LMI> to mail thingies at all.

But it should be possible to run without the suffix if you *do* keep a
separate directory.  This has kept me from moving to Gnus for mail as yet.
The only files in the spool directory that aren't spools are hidden (dot)
files anyway, which should be ignored.

I do it this way because I have a number of tools that do things like
monitor the size and mtime/atime of files in that directory to give me a
multi-file "biff", and they use the name of the file as the title of the
mailbox.  A redundant suffix would just clutter up their output
needlessly, or force me to rewrite all of them to use it--including some
that are just shell aliases with a special set of completions.  All the
code is built so that to create a new spool file the only files that I
have to change are .procmailrc and .vm, and if I get better at lisp I'll
fix it so .vm doesn't need changing.

Code like the following, for example:

#!/usr/bin/perl

$spooldir = "$ENV{'HOME'}/Mail/spool";

chdir($spooldir) || die "can't chdir";

foreach (<*>) {
    ($dev,$ino,$mode,$nlink,$uid,$gid,$rdev,$size,
     $atime,$mtime,$ctime,$blksize,$blocks) = stat($_);
    next if ($size == 0);
    print (($atime < $mtime)?" ** ":"    ");
    print $_,"\n";
}

Re: nnfolder comments (may apply to other backends too)

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Christopher Davis <ckd@loiosh.kei.com> writes:

> But it should be possible to run without the suffix if you *do* keep a
> separate directory.

You don't have to have suffixes on the spool files.  Just set
`nnmail-procmail-suffix' to "".

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen