From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RMAIL, MIME-related bug Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:48:35 -0500 (CDT) Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200310162348.h9GNmZm25160@raven.dms.auburn.edu> References: <200310121947.h9CJlhKH006102@oak.pohoyda.family> <6480-Thu16Oct2003192118+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <200310161914.h9GJEYW0004195@beta.mvs.co.il> <87ekxczw0t.fsf@oak.pohoyda.family> <200310162221.h9GMLUvV000692@beta.mvs.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1066348801 21296 80.91.224.253 (17 Oct 2003 00:00:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 00:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@elta.co.il, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, alexander.pohoyda@gmx.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 17 01:59:58 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AAI2A-0003Li-00 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:59:58 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AAI2A-0007EO-00 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 01:59:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AAHy5-0007iU-V6 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:55:45 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AAHwA-0007PU-0i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:53:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.24) id 1AAHvc-0007GH-0Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:53:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AAHvY-0007Fm-4t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:53:08 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.dms.auburn.edu (raven.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.29]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9GNr25E008950; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:53:02 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id h9GNmZm25160; Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:48:35 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: ehud@unix.mvs.co.il In-reply-to: <200310162221.h9GMLUvV000692@beta.mvs.co.il> (ehud@unix.mvs.co.il) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:17188 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:17188 Ehud Karni wrote: I store email too, but still I say that only few are read more than once. What summary navigation has to with it ? In RMAIL, with a summary buffer and an RMAIL buffer in another window, C-p and C-n in the summary buffer update the message shown in the RMAIL buffer. The MIME decoding should be fast enough not to excessively slow down C-n and C-p in the summary buffer. It should also be fast enough not to excessively slow down `n' and `p' in the RMAIL buffer itself, which I would guess to be pretty much equivalent (in that sense, "_summary_ navigation" is not the main problem, navigation _in whatever form_ is.) Whether I use C-n or C-p in the summary buffer or `n' or `p' in RMAIL, I would wind up MIME decoding every message I do not immediately delete several times, just by navigation. That makes speed of MIME decoding more relevant than it would otherwise be. As Richard pointed out, however: It is not a good idea to make such drastic changes to the message as it is saved on disk. They should be done as part of displaying the message, when the user selects it. The results can be cached to make moving between messages faster, if that's desirable. Whether caching would be desirable depends, of course, on how fast MIME decoding without caching winds up being. Sincerely, Luc.