Re: Beagle and Thunderbird

[Alan Trick <alantrik yahoo ca>]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 21:52 -0500, Eldo Varghese wrote:
> 1)No Thunderbird uses mbox,  berkeley mailbox format to be precise.
> *http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/search?string=berkeley+mailbox
> 
> 2)I guess that would have to be written into the thunderbird reading 
> component.
> 
> 3)I dont understand your statement, why wouldnt beagle be able to read 
> an mbox file when any text editor can read it?
> 

Sorry, I haven't been listening to the discussion but I assume he was
talking about if you found the email in a search then beagle would need
to know how to get thunderbird to open that particular email. Otherwise
if you clicked 'Open' and all it did was opened thunderbird it would be
pretty useless as you would have to search for it in thunderbird again.

> - Eldo
> Daniel Drake wrote:
> > Eldo Varghese wrote:
> >> Wouldn't it be simpler/better to write in mbox support and then extra 
> >> things for individual email clients?
> >
> > No, because:
> > 1. Thunderbird uses maildir, not mbox
> >
> > 2. Thunderbird keeps mail in ~/.thunderbird and beagle does not index 
> > hidden directories unless a backend explicitly states that there is 
> > data there.
> >
> > 3. Having mail without context is not very useful; beagle wouldn't 
> > know how to open it. So, after searching, you'd have to open 
> > thunderbird manually and do that same search again.
> >
> > More in tune with your question, yes, it is a good idea to implement 
> > mail filtering as a general case and then share it between the various 
> > mail sources that we have. This already happens, the Mail filter is 
> > used by the kmail backend, the evolution backend, and also for lone 
> > mail files found on the filesystem.
> >
> > Daniel
> >

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com