Re: libglade and mailbox structure - opition requested

On 2000-06-21 19:21 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> How deep would this go into the mailbox structs and definitions ? libmutt

I hope it won't be necessary. I am certain the MailboxNode stuff will be
extended and possibly slightly rewritten.

> BTW, looks like my proposal for a new corba interface didn't reach the

It did reach me - but my knowledge about IDL is next to null so I didn't
dare comment it. Having possibility to communicate with a pilot would be
great, one more reason to stick with balsa :-).

> the netscape interface is nice imho. you have the main server on mbox
> and when you expand it you see all folders inside it .. recursive. it's
> a bit expensive and slugish though. prolly having that *while*
> would be nice. 

I should probably comment in this place on what has been already done on
nested IMAP mailboxes (the code is in CVS). Selecting IMAP folder set on new
mailbox creation pops up identical message window as for single IMAP folder.
The Folder path has different interpretation. IF it points to a single
folder, single folder will be added. However, if it points to a dir on IMAP
server, whole directory structure will be scanned (so don't try to set it to '.'
unless you know what you are doing) and respective mailboxes created. And
yes, for large sets it can be expensive... But the present scanner code is
written in such a flexible fashion that modification to create a tree on
configuration so the user can select interesting folders, will not be too
difficult. Anyway, I am going to start from ordinary folder renaming etc., moving
between directories perhaps (I am not going to write a whole file-manager,

I have also got a suggestion to scan Netscape-compatible ~/.mailboxlist for
remote IMAP folders to be included. Any comments?

Pawel Salek (
Theoretical Chemistry Division, KTH voice: +46 8 790-8202

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]