imap-uw variant to default new mailboxes to "mix" format

[mports@…]

I prefer the mix mailbox format so made this change locally and thought I'd submit it for consideration.

Note that the mix and mbx variants should be mutually exclusive. I didn't test to see what happens if both are specified (whether one of the two prevails or if the build fails). What's the best way to handle such cases?

[mports@…]

imap-uw Portfile patch to add "mix" variant.

[snc@…]

Hi mports. I'm acknowledge your interest in a mix variant. While I understand you desire this, and I will move to provide it as a variant, I'd like to know what you find beneficial from this. In particular, the  upstream website says:

The rumors about mbx format being preferred are true. It is faster than the traditional UNIX mailbox format and permits shared access.

After perusing their site do you still believe that mix format will be beneficial for you?

Thanks and I'll have your variant in this weekend!

[mports@…]

Replying to snc@…:

After perusing their site do you still believe that mix format will be beneficial for you?

Hi. Yes. The mix format is newer (2006) than mbx and has a number of advantages. Wikipedia has an brief overview:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIX_(Email)

I use UW IMAP exclusively for personal mail storage, so the higher performance and better robustness, while nice, are not all that important. I use mix primarily because it allows dual-use mailboxes, i.e., they can contain both messages and sub-folders, and it breaks up mailboxes into smaller sized files that help with backup performance. The downside, I suppose, is that the format is not directly readable by non-UW software (maybe this has changed) but I don't mind that.

Thanks and I'll have your variant in this weekend!

Thanks! No rush.

Any thoughts on how to manage the fact that the mbx and mix variants should be mutually exclusive? I suppose that since they are both described as setting the default mailbox format, it's implied that they should not be used together. Should the descriptions be more explicit?

Thanks again.

[mports@…]

Cc Me!

[snc@…]

Replying to mports@…:

Any thoughts on how to manage the fact that the mbx and mix variants should be mutually exclusive? I suppose that since they are both described as setting the default mailbox format, it's implied that they should not be used together. Should the descriptions be more explicit?

It's pretty easy to handle the mutually exclusivity if they're both provided as flags: I simply remove one and add the other to the arguments passed in. It's nice having a layer of abstraction! :-)

Btw, you don't need to have yourself CC'd on the ticket: you get sent emails already being the reporter.

[snc@…]

Committed in r62261.

[mports@…]

Replying to snc@…:

It's pretty easy to handle the mutually exclusivity if they're both provided as flags: I simply remove one and add the other to the arguments passed in. It's nice having a layer of abstraction! :-)

Ah. Perfect. I had looked for but missed the "conflicts" option.

Btw, you don't need to have yourself CC'd on the ticket: you get sent emails already being the reporter.

But I'm not receiving any emails. I just tested the address and there's no sign of them in my spam folder.

I did change the email address in my profile immediately after registering. I didn't get a second confirmation email; might that be the problem?

[snc@…]

Replying to mports@…:

But I'm not receiving any emails. I just tested the address and there's no sign of them in my spam folder. I did change the email address in my profile immediately after registering. I didn't get a second confirmation email; might that be the problem?

I'll send an email to the person who does the hosting administration for us and see if he has any thoughts.