Philip Hazel wrote: > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Eli wrote:
> OK, a list could be much more extensive and do all kinds of
> complicated lookups. But are these *really* needed? What I understood
> was that people wanted compatible support for maildirsize. So that's
> what I'm currently doing. I'm short of time at the moment; pushing
> this design further isn't important enough just now, I'm afraid.
I figured as much, and I should have just left it at that without rambling
on about everything I want :)
>> Adding some flexibility to this now
>> might take a bit longer, but would probably save you from wishlist
>> items down the road :)
>
> The whole maildirsize thing is a huge hack. What should happen is
> that a much better scheme comes along rather than pushing this hack
> further. Designing it isn't something I have time for, I'm afraid.
Quite true indeed. Hack away and maybe I can help with a new quota scheme
idea later on if it ever comes up. I'm quite relieved to see you consider
Maildir++ a hack (since it really is, and gives no substantial gains at all
that I can see) :)
