--- /dev/null
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476BC431FB6\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:45:34 -0700 (PDT)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+ tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+ NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id wqxEs8BdWwyg for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\r
+ (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+ (No client certificate requested)\r
+ by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E9B6431FAF\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+ by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1SkLae-0001AU-EN; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:45:29 +0100\r
+Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]\r
+ helo=localhost)\r
+ by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)\r
+ (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+ id 1SkLae-0004H0-1Z; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:45:24 +0100\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Ethan <ethan.glasser.camp@gmail.com>\r
+Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] modular mail stores based on URIs\r
+In-Reply-To:\r
+ <CAOJ+Ob0Kw0Kkhh9C27Xv9gvqtNowzQiNqrLAtvti7fL8NND2+w@mail.gmail.com>\r
+References: <1340656899-5644-1-git-send-email-ethan@betacantrips.com>\r
+ <877gutnmf1.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+ <CAOJ+Ob0Kw0Kkhh9C27Xv9gvqtNowzQiNqrLAtvti7fL8NND2+w@mail.gmail.com>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+63~g548a9bf (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:45:17 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <87k3yrmahu.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: 8e222e9d9c98afd4c482bb64b2c82a6f (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+ determine if it is\r
+ spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+ This message scored -1.8 points.\r
+ Summary of the scoring: \r
+ * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,\r
+ * medium trust\r
+ * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]\r
+ * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+ provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+ * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay\r
+ * domain\r
+ * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\r
+Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:45:34 -0000\r
+\r
+On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Ethan <ethan.glasser.camp@gmail.com> wrote:\r
+> I sent this at first as a reply-only-to-sender. Oops! Sorry Mark for the\r
+> double send.\r
+>\r
+> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>wrote:\r
+>\r
+>> > Personally, this isn't my favorite approach, for the following reasons:\r
+>> >\r
+>> > 1. Notmuch, at some point in its history, chose to store file paths\r
+>> > relative to a "mail database", with the intent that if this mail\r
+>> > database was moved, filenames would not change and everything would\r
+>> > Just Work (tm). The above scheme completely reverses this design\r
+>> > decision, and in general completely breaks this relocatability. I\r
+>> > don't see any easy way to handle this problem. This isn't just a\r
+>> > wishlist feature; at least two things in the test suite (caching of\r
+>> > corpus.mail, and the atomicity tests) rely on this behavior.\r
+>>\r
+>> Why can't the URI just store a relative path, at least for maildir://\r
+>> and mbox:// ? It is purely internal to notmuch so it doesn't need to be\r
+>> very standard.\r
+>>\r
+>\r
+> Well, relative to where? This is especially relevant now that we can have\r
+> multiple mail stores. It sounds like you are suggesting that all mbox://\r
+> URIs are relative to an "mbox root", but the fundamental question is how to\r
+> pass that information from the configuration into the library.\r
+\r
+I was thinking of just having one mail root and inside that there could\r
+be maildirs and mboxes. Everything would still be relative to the root.\r
+\r
+> Even using configuration itself may be problematic, because only the CLI\r
+> uses the configuration, and language bindings like Python and Ruby might\r
+> get out of sync! (But note also that the Python bindings currently use\r
+> .notmuch-config to find the database path, so maybe it's not a big deal.)\r
+>\r
+> If I could do whatever I wanted, every mailstore would get registered\r
+> somehow and the URIs could use those registered names to specify what\r
+> they're relative to: maybe using hostname, such as\r
+> maildir://university-mail/some-mail-file, mbox://old-unix-system/some.mbox.\r
+> Then changing these names in .notmuch-config would be fine. I just don't\r
+> know how to pass that configuration information without an approach like in\r
+> the past patch series.\r
+>\r
+> > 2. Mail access information, i.e. open connections, etc. can only be\r
+>> > stored in variables global to the mailstore code, and cannot be stored\r
+>> > as private members of a mailstore object. This is more an aesthetic\r
+>> > concern than a functional one.\r
+>> >\r
+>> > Anyhow, the following (enormous) patch series implement this design. I\r
+>> > used uriparser as an external library to parse URIs. The API for this\r
+>> > library is a little idiosyncratic. uriparser supports parsing Unicode\r
+>> > URIs (strings of wchar_t), but I just used ASCII filenames because I\r
+>> > think that's what comes out of Xapian.\r
+>>\r
+>> Why use a library? Isn't it just a question of does the string contain\r
+>> // and, if so, splitting it? I guess that // is a nice separator as I\r
+>> think we can assume that a true path does not contain it (since a\r
+>> filename cannot contain /).\r
+>>\r
+>\r
+> The URIs are true URIs. Filenames are provided by the "path" segment of the\r
+> uri -- everything from the first slash after the hostname up to a ? for\r
+> query arguments. My concern was that filenames could (in theory) contain #\r
+> or ?, and in practice they contain : (maildir flags). I figured it was\r
+> better to do it right.\r
+\r
+This is similar to your question to Jamie:\r
+\r
+> 1. Are URIs the way to specify individual messages, despite bremner's\r
+> concerns about too much of the API being strings? Is adding another library\r
+> is the easiest way to parse URIs?\r
+\r
+In my opinion the nice thing about using strings is that it does not require\r
+any changes to the Xapian database to store them. I think using URIs may\r
+not be best though as they seem to be annoying to parse (as filenames\r
+can contain the same characters) and you seem to need to work around the\r
+parser in some cases.\r
+\r
+I wonder if the following would be practical: use // as the field\r
+separator:\r
+\r
+e.g. mbox://filename//start_of_message+length\r
+\r
+I think 2 consecutive slashes // is about the only thing we can assume\r
+is not in the path or filename. Since it is not in the filename I think\r
+parsing should be trivial (thus avoiding the extra library).\r
+ \r
+Secondly, I would prefer to keep maildirs as just the bare file name: so\r
+the existence of // can be the signal that there is some other\r
+scheme. This is asymmetric, but is rather more backwardly compatible. \r
+\r
+I have read most of the patches and will send a couple of specific\r
+comments but I completely agree with you that the first thing is to\r
+decide the above.\r
+\r
+Finally do note these are just my views and others may have very\r
+different ideas!\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
projects / notmuch-archives.git / commitdiff