Re: avoid clash between multiple mail backends

[Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann)]

dsg@mitre.org (David S. Goldberg) writes:

> [...]  It suppose it would be nice if each backend were given
> different defaults so this work wouldn't be necessary but since the
> majority of people only want one backend, I'm not sure it makes that
> much difference.

I have posted too quickly, for which I apologize.  I think I should
explain in more detail.

I'm speaking as Advocate of the Newbies, once again...

It appears that more and more people post on gnu.emacs.gnus who are
trying to use more than one mail backend (for whatever reason).
Subjectively, the frequency of such postings seems to be increasing.
Of course, they don't know what they're doing, and hence they don't
include server parameters, and hence they have problems.

One solution is obvious: let all the backends use different active
files, and maybe even different directories.  This will help new
users.  But it might break things for unsuspecting old users.  Hm.

Let's talk about the active files.  What happens now if you have two
servers using the same active file?  Does that mean that users won't
have two servers with the same active file right now?  Then the active
file default could be changed.

If using one active file for two servers now works (kind of), then a
migration mechanism could look like this: server `nnml:foo' looks if
the active file is specified in the server parameters.  If it is, that
active file is used.  If no active file is specified in the server
parameters, then it looks for a ~/Mail/active file and picks out all
the relevant group entries from that and writes them to
~/Mail/active-nnml:foo and uses that file from now on.

And now let's talk about directories.  What happens if you have an
nnml server and an nnmh server, both looking at the same directory
(~/Mail, say)?  (But not at the same active file.)  Does this mean
that creating an nnml group will make an nnmh group mysteriously
appear?  And vice versa?

kai
-- 
The birch trees fly way too low these days.