From: Mark Walters Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:48:36 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] modular mail stores based on URIs X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=fff88705c5a8e473927499918e22ca133a0204ba;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] modular mail stores based on URIs --- diff --git a/bb/b02cb00f5d907c376c1f383553a48f42cbf04b b/bb/b02cb00f5d907c376c1f383553a48f42cbf04b new file mode 100644 index 000000000..edd0c2c4f --- /dev/null +++ b/bb/b02cb00f5d907c376c1f383553a48f42cbf04b @@ -0,0 +1,154 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B667431FD4 + for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:48:53 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id l0mhZzKend9t for ; + Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:48:51 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1713D431FAF + for ; Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:48:51 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1SlNKC-0006Y7-NZ; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:48:46 +0100 +Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223] + helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) + (envelope-from ) + id 1SlNKC-0002Tw-DJ; Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:48:40 +0100 +From: Mark Walters +To: Ethan +Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/14] modular mail stores based on URIs +In-Reply-To: + +References: <1340656899-5644-1-git-send-email-ethan@betacantrips.com> + <877gutnmf1.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> + + <87k3yrmahu.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> + +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.13.2+70~gb6a56e7 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:48:36 +0100 +Message-ID: <87lij32zrv.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223 +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: aca816c7db7a5308d47f64aa70561ee3 (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8 +X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: - +X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to + determine if it is + spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. + This message scored -1.8 points. + Summary of the scoring: + * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + * medium trust + * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org] + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + * domain + * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:48:53 -0000 + +On Sun, 01 Jul 2012, Ethan wrote: +> Thanks for going through it, I know there's a lot to go through.. +> +> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Mark Walters wrote: +> +>> I was thinking of just having one mail root and inside that there could +>> be maildirs and mboxes. Everything would still be relative to the root. +>> +> +> I'm hesitant to have directories that contain maildirs and mboxes. It +> should be possible to unambiguously distinguish between a maildir file and +> an mbox file (mboxes always start with "From ", no colon) but it sounds +> kind of fragile. + +Well I was thinking you would still need to add specific sub-directories +of db_path that might contain mboxes. + +>> 1. Are URIs the way to specify individual messages, despite bremner's +>> > concerns about too much of the API being strings? Is adding another +>> library +>> > is the easiest way to parse URIs? +>> +>> In my opinion the nice thing about using strings is that it does not +>> require +>> any changes to the Xapian database to store them. I think using URIs may +>> not be best though as they seem to be annoying to parse (as filenames +>> can contain the same characters) and you seem to need to work around the +>> parser in some cases. +>> +> +> I think that's more the fault of the parser than of the URIs. If glib came +> with a parser, that would be great. There aren't a lot of options for +> pure-C URI parsing. Besides uriparser, there's also some code in the W3C +> sample code library, but it looked like integrating it would be a pain so I +> let it go. +> +> I wonder if the following would be practical: use // as the field +>> separator: +>> +>> e.g. mbox://filename//start_of_message+length +>> +>> I think 2 consecutive slashes // is about the only thing we can assume +>> is not in the path or filename. Since it is not in the filename I think +>> parsing should be trivial (thus avoiding the extra library). +>> +> +> Can you explain what you mean when you say that two consecutive slashes +> can't appear in a URL? Ordinary filesystem paths can contain them, and so +> can file: URLs. (I just looked up file:///home/ethan///////tmp and Firefox +> handled that OK.) I've sometimes seen machine-generated filenames with +> double slashes because that way you don't have to make sure the incoming +> filename was correctly terminated before adding another level. + +Nothing outside notmuch (i.e. other applications creating arbitrary +filenames etc) can make notmuch store a // as part of a path so if we +ever do store them in the database it's our own fault. In particular +notmuch can avoid them easily in that they cannot occur in a filename. + + +>> Secondly, I would prefer to keep maildirs as just the bare file name: so +>> the existence of // can be the signal that there is some other +>> scheme. This is asymmetric, but is rather more backwardly compatible. +>> +> +> Based on your and Jani's reasoning, I did this. Revised patch series +> follows. + +I will try and look at that now. + +Best wishes + +Mark +