RMAIL: mbox code status ?

RMAIL: mbox code status ?

[zedek]

Hi,

How can I try the mbox stuff for rmail from CVS ?

Regards

Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?

[Henrik Enberg]

> 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.

Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?

[Xavier Maillard]

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.

Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?

[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?

p.

Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?

[Richard M. Stallman]

    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.

Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?

[Xavier Maillard]

   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 

Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?

[Xavier Maillard]

   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 

Re: RMAIL: mbox code status ?

[ams]

   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.