Re: Maildir format

>> On 24 May 2003 11:23:44 +0200, 
>> "clemens fischer" <[email protected]> said:

   >> "Karl Vogel" <[email protected]>:
   K> I found that calling ifile from procmail is much slower than either
   K> using Maildir formats directly, or splitting a given mbox into
   K> separate messages and then running ifile on all of them at one shot.

C> ok.  how do you propose to handle users who want a special header with
C> ifiles result added to each message?  i think this is one of the central
C> issues of this thread.

   I'd do something like this, if all I wanted to see was something based
   on the concise output format.  Here are my individual mail messages,
   Maildir users modify appropriately:

     me% ls
     001  003  005  007  009  011  013  015  017  019  021
     002  004  006  008  010  012  014  016  018  020  022

     me% ifile -c -q ???
     001 good
     002 good
     003 good
     004 spam
     005 good
     006 good
     007 good
     008 good
     009 good
     010 good
     011 good
     012 spam
     013 good
     014 good
     015 good
     016 good
     017 good
     018 other
     019 good
     020 good
     021 good
     022 good

   This is perfect for a filter of some kind to open each message and
   append "X-Ifile-Result: {good,other,spam}" to the header:

     me% ifile -c -q ??? | update-header

   "procmail" could certainly do the same thing, but it can't do more than
   one message per invocation; by using the filter approach, you don't have
   fork/exec/parse-procmailrc overhead for every message.  It wouldn't
   matter for just a few messages, but you'd see a difference if you handle
   them in batches of a few dozen or hundred at a time.
     
-- 
Karl Vogel                      I don't speak for the USAF or my company
[email protected]                          http://www.pobox.com/~vogelke

Top reasons to fear smart appliances #2:
Your smart pillow talks to your PC, which emails your boss with a
message that, yep, you've overslept again.