From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:20:09 -0500
Message-ID: <E1EiM4P-0004gO-9a@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <873blcyopd.fsf@totoz.gnu-rox.org> <m2hd9rofk2.fsf@dront.local>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1133572926 5601 80.91.229.2 (3 Dec 2005 01:22:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 01:22:06 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 03 02:21:48 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EiM4m-0003yc-S5
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:20:33 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EiM4n-0000mY-AI
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:20:33 -0500
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EiM4U-0000jc-MH
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:20:14 -0500
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EiM4U-0000jI-4S
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:20:14 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EiM4T-0000jE-Un
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:20:14 -0500
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EiM4Y-0006Rd-25
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:20:18 -0500
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1EiM4P-0004gO-9a; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:20:09 -0500
Original-To: prestowk <prestowk@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <m2hd9rofk2.fsf@dront.local> (message from prestowk on Fri, 02
	Dec 2005 14:21:17 +0200)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:46916
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/46916>

    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.