Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:48:50 -0800
From: Randall Gellens <randy(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com>
At 8:24 PM -0500 1/22/99, Tim Showalter wrote:
No. I wasn't clear. I find the terminology "FileInto" and "CopyInto"
confusing because the terms do not clearly specify what they do.
Actually, neither do "FileOnlyInto" and "FileInto" or whatever. Blah.
My intent was that many "FileInto"s can be obeyed IF the server supports
FileInto at all.
If the server supports "FileOnlyInto", only one invocation works (either
the first or the last).
Ack. Perhaps "MoveInto" is best, and the last one is the only one
obeyed. I dunno.
Are we at least agreed that we need one action which indicates into
which mailbox the message should be delivered, and that if more than
one of these actions is executed, only one is actually obeyed? [...]
My problem is that I believe multiple fileintos will be useful, and a
single-use fileinto is a limited case, i.e., fitting into another
architechture which had limits on such things. I am not happy about
adding multiple fileinto variants to make up for the prohibition on
multiple fileintos.
Or do some people disagree, and feel we need an action (optional to
support) which can be invoked any number of times, each time causing
the message to be delivered into a mailbox?
I consider this important, but FLAMES and Cyrus both have duplicate
delivery supression such that multiple messages with the same
Message-IDs are only put in the mailbox once.
The second case is harder to name, because we have a FileInto (must
implement) and something else which is optional, call it
OptionalFileInto. [...]
Fileinto is not mandatory.
A script can be expected to execute one or more
OptionalFileIntos on systems which support it, and alternatively one
FileInto on systems which do not support OptionalFileInto.
I think this situation sucks.
I understand your position, but I don't like it. I don't mean to make
this sound like a flame, but I'm really not happy about arbitrary limits
on numbers of actions, especially ones like FileInto which can be
considered to be harmless. I don't know how common this problem is
going to be, but I really thought it was nonexistant until you brought
it up.
I guess that if I write my scripts well I will typically file on
Return-Path, so it can be dealt with.
--
Tim Showalter <tjs+(_at_)andrew(_dot_)cmu(_dot_)edu>