Paul Fox wrote:
why couldn't an indexer know the difference between the message file
and the content cache?
anyway: i think i still prefer the idea that the content cache
directories be kept in the message tree. but i also understand why
one might want them separate. if the idea is that the message tree
and the cache tree are roughly isomorphic, i'll bet that could be made
a per-user choice, as long as the content directories were really
named "53.mime/" and not simply "53/" -- i.e., the messages and the
mime-dirs could either live in the same tree or not, since they use
different parts of the namespace. (but clients certainly would need
to be careful not to assume one model or the other.)
If we follow and enforce these rules:
1) Files in the message tree can only be named [1-9][0-9]*
or `mhparam mh-sequences` (defaults to .mh_sequences).
I think that's what an MH folder is. The old
documentation mentions "standard entries", but I can only
find mh-sequences now.
2) Subfolders in the message tree cannot match the form
specified in 1). nmh doesn't currently enforce this now:
some nmh programs (scan) complain about a subfolder named
inbox/2000, but folder happily creates it (but should not).
It's OK for a top-level message folder to be named
[1-9][0-9]* (or even .mh_sequences, but I wouldn't recommend
that).
3) Files and directories in the cache tree cannot match the
form specified in 1).
Then you could do, e.g.,
Path: Mail
nmh-private-cache: Mail
to have them in the same directory.
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers