* RMAIL: mbox code status ?
@ 2005-12-02 6:53 zedek
2005-12-02 8:24 ` Henrik Enberg
2005-12-02 12:21 ` prestowk
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: zedek @ 2005-12-02 6:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hi,
How can I try the mbox stuff for rmail from CVS ?
Regards
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?
2005-12-02 6:53 RMAIL: mbox code status ? zedek
@ 2005-12-02 8:24 ` Henrik Enberg
2005-12-02 10:15 ` Xavier Maillard
2005-12-02 12:21 ` prestowk
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Henrik Enberg @ 2005-12-02 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:53:34 +0100
> From: zedek@gnu-rox.org
>
> How can I try the mbox stuff for rmail from CVS ?
cd to your emacs src tree and type "cvs co -r rmail-mbox-branch". But
keep in mind that it isn't really of regular use quality yet.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?
2005-12-02 8:24 ` Henrik Enberg
@ 2005-12-02 10:15 ` Xavier Maillard
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Xavier Maillard @ 2005-12-02 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
Henrik Enberg <henrik.enberg@telia.com> writes:
>> Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:53:34 +0100
>> From: zedek@gnu-rox.org
>>
>> How can I try the mbox stuff for rmail from CVS ?
>
> cd to your emacs src tree and type "cvs co -r rmail-mbox-branch".
Perfect ! Thank you Henrick.
> But keep in mind that it isn't really of regular use quality
> yet.
That is just to test the software and report any bug if any or even submit patch
if I can.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?
2005-12-02 6:53 RMAIL: mbox code status ? zedek
2005-12-02 8:24 ` Henrik Enberg
@ 2005-12-02 12:21 ` prestowk
2005-12-03 1:20 ` Richard M. Stallman
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: prestowk @ 2005-12-02 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
What are the main reasons for switching from Babyl to mbox format in
Rmail? Are there technical or conceptual problems with the Babyl
format, or is it just a case of wanting compatibility with a more
widely used format?
p.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?
2005-12-02 12:21 ` prestowk
@ 2005-12-03 1:20 ` Richard M. Stallman
2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Richard M. Stallman @ 2005-12-03 1:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
What are the main reasons for switching from Babyl to mbox format in
Rmail? Are there technical or conceptual problems with the Babyl
format, or is it just a case of wanting compatibility with a more
widely used format?
mbox format is smaller, and provides more compatibility. We
originally used Babyl format to provide certain features, but later on
people figured out how to implement the same features with mbox format,
eliminating the reason to use Babyl.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?
2005-12-02 12:21 ` prestowk
2005-12-03 1:20 ` Richard M. Stallman
@ 2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
2005-12-05 10:08 ` ams
2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Xavier Maillard @ 2005-12-04 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:21:17 +0200
From: prestowk <prestowk@gmail.com>
What are the main reasons for switching from Babyl to mbox format in
Rmail? Are there technical or conceptual problems with the Babyl
format, or is it just a case of wanting compatibility with a more
widely used format?
I can see two main reasons:
1. The format as you said
2. Procmail splitting (and anti-spam countermeasures)
Not to forget that, as someone told me, Emacs can only deal with 128Mb
file.
Here are my reasons to use this branch.
Xavier
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?
2005-12-02 12:21 ` prestowk
2005-12-03 1:20 ` Richard M. Stallman
2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
@ 2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Xavier Maillard @ 2005-12-04 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: emacs-devel
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:21:17 +0200
From: prestowk <prestowk@gmail.com>
What are the main reasons for switching from Babyl to mbox format in
Rmail? Are there technical or conceptual problems with the Babyl
format, or is it just a case of wanting compatibility with a more
widely used format?
I can see two main reasons:
1. The format as you said
2. Procmail splitting (and anti-spam countermeasures)
Not to forget that, as someone told me, Emacs can only deal with 128Mb
file.
Here are my reasons to use this branch.
Xavier
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?
2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
@ 2005-12-05 10:08 ` ams
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: ams @ 2005-12-05 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: prestowk, emacs-devel
2. Procmail splitting (and anti-spam countermeasures)
You can still use procmail with the existing format. What you do is
filter all incoming mail into say ~/mbox.inbox, and then make rmail
use that as the primary inbox.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-12-05 10:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-12-02 6:53 RMAIL: mbox code status ? zedek
2005-12-02 8:24 ` Henrik Enberg
2005-12-02 10:15 ` Xavier Maillard
2005-12-02 12:21 ` prestowk
2005-12-03 1:20 ` Richard M. Stallman
2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
2005-12-05 10:08 ` ams
2005-12-04 23:29 ` Xavier Maillard
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).