From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Xavier Maillard Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ? Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:29:13 +0100 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: zedek@gnu-rox.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1133739280 23100 80.91.229.2 (4 Dec 2005 23:34:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:34:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 05 00:34:36 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ej3MA-0005Wc-R6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:33:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ej3MG-0001nl-Gh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:33:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ej3Kb-0001Ag-Fr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:31:45 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Ej3KZ-00019e-O0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:31:45 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ej3KZ-00019a-MT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:31:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [213.41.184.169] (helo=smtp.gnu-rox.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Ej3Ky-0001pH-Dw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:32:08 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [10.0.0.7]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gnu-rox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D238BBFB; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:34:14 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from zedek by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ej3I9-0001VX-Db; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:29:13 +0100 Original-To: prestowk In-reply-to: (message from prestowk on Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:21:17 +0200) User-Agent: RMAIL/GNU Emacs 22.0.50.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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:46974 Archived-At: Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:21:17 +0200 From: prestowk 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