Re: nnmaildir.el + courier IMAP compatibility patch

[prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc)]

Matt Armstrong <matt@lickey.com> wrote:
> prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) writes:
>> I've occasionally thought of writing an IMAP server that would store
>> marks in an nnmaildir-compatible way.
>
> I've occasionally thought of going the opposite direction and forking
> your nnmaildir.el to be less inode intensive by storing marks using
> the "experimental suffix" method described in the maildir spec,

That would save you one inode per group, at most.  (In my setup, it
would save one inode total.)

> storing overview data as nnml does, etc.

That would save you one inode per article.  I think it could improve
or hinder performance, depending on your filesystem, but would require
more complex code in any case.  Are you in any danger of running out
of inodes, according to "df -i"?

>> How does Courier store marks?
>
> With the maildir standard ":2,XYZ" suffixes on the filenames

Ok.  There are a few reasons nnmaildir doesn't do that: it can't
accommodate all of Gnus's marks; using two different storage methods
for different sets of marks would be pretty ugly; treating the
filename as constant makes concurrent use much easier.


paul