Re: new ver. of balsa?

[Magick <magick linux-fan com>]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 23:56:29 Carlos Morgado wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 09:47:02PM +0200, Pawel Salek wrote:
> <rant>
> As for _replacing_ libmutt (see other thread), please don't waste time
> with
> half arse libs. If anything is to replace libmutt it must be clean,
> *fast* and gpl compliant. It must be consistent for local and imap.
> Untill now, none filled this requirments. All were either ugly, slow,
> incomplete or a combination of those.
> As for imap, all code i've seen till now blows dead bears (including
> libmutt and servers).
> My road map would be to keep libmutt and possibly migrate parts/all of
> the
> imap code to libbalsa (like it happened for pop) as that pretty much is
> the
> only way of getting nice nonblocking io (hum .. maybe not - brainstorm).
> As it stands, for local access (lib)mutt is pretty much unbeatable.
> </rant>
> pawel ?

So if we are going to migrate the imap code, why not do that too with the 
local mailbox handling. What i like to know is what is a good interface 
for this. My idea of the mailbox handling is that it should be more like a 
filesystem, the basis does only the storing and retrieving. Interpeting 
the msg is not part of the functionality. For fast and complete code we 
can take part of libmutt or write our own.

Bart
-- 
Fingerprint = CD4D 5601 287D F075 6F96  6157 99F9 E56A 4B08 6D06