>Once again, there are existing mail files which:This is true. However, you have no way of identifying these mail files,
> 1: faithfully reproduce the contents of the messages in them, and
>Your new format will not faithfully present those messages to the user.
because the "mboxo" format loses information.
>Therefore, it is not a compatible solution.By "compatible", I mean that mboxo readers understand mboxrd files,
and that mboxrd understand mboxo files. You can even have a file with
messages written in the 2 different formats, and both readers will
continue to understand it. You can upgrade any given writer or reader
independently of all the others.
Sure, mail messages will continue to be displayed corrupted till *all*
Furthermore, I claim that the sequence `From' is considerably more
>You're proposing a new format, and you're saying, "no, it's not 100%I don't believe that occasionally seeing `From' where you should have
>compatible." But your new format will cause confusion.
seen `>From' is any more confusing than the other way round. Certainly,
none of my users have complained since I started introducing mboxrd
format over two years ago.
> Because thisNo no no. The problem with mboxo is that it *destroys* *information*.
>new format has the same problem as all the other formats, which is that
>you cannot examine the file and know which format it is.
By using an mboxrd writer, you avoid destroying that information, and
you can subsequently retrieve it with an mboxrd reader.
Granted, there's no way to tell an mboxo file from an mboxrd file. But
[ I'm using Dan's terminology: "mboxo" is the original mbox format,
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.