On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 05:34:36PM -0800,
ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
fileinto :keep-maximum-messages 100 "somefolder";
or
fileinto :keep-maximum-storage 100k "somefolder";
(or both).
Or how about limits on an entire folder tree? Or limits expressed in terms of
messages with different characteristics? (These are not theoretical -- I've
seen requests for both of these.) The list goes on and on and on.
One can always theorize extreme tangents for any discussion. Even so,
it could be useful to have fundamental access to operations on
existing mailstore when storing a new message.
Like it or not, this is digging deep into the general area of message store
semantics and brings up any number of fairly subtle issues, e.g., are the
criteria met by deleting old messages, deleting the largest messages, holding
new messages, bouncing new messages, etc. etc.
Obviously we disagree, because (re "like it or not") I do
like it :-) In the case of a rolling mailbox, the issues are not
subtle. One has a sliding window of the mailbox, where old
messages are dropped to make room for new ones. This is really
not an outlandish idea, nor does it introduce any new folder
semantics. If it sparks other ideas or other ways to access mail
folders, so much the better-- any way to give owner of a mailstore
a little more control at delivery time. That's one of the things
SIEVE is for.
mm