On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 06:12:43PM -0500, Fairlight wrote:
>
> I've wished for a gzipped mailbox read feature myself.
I have a shell function that I use as a wrapper around mutt to handle
gzipped mailboxes, but it's rather ugly. I'd much prefer that mutt could
handle it internally.
> However, I'll politely disagree with you on PGP encrypted mailboxes being
> fantastic. In fact, it would be slow and cumbersome, for the simple
> reason that in the case of a mailbox you want to add onto, you'd have to
> know if it was PGP encrypted (which would likely mean creating an ASCII
> armoured file, which would then require a third layer of gzipping to get
> it BACK down to a reasonable size), and also have to unencrypt it to read
> it, write to it, and then reencrypt it entirely over again.
Actually, I was thinking of something just a tiny bit simpler. I was
thinking about writing a wrapper like the one I wrote for gzip, that would
simply check the extension of the file loaded via 'mutt -f'. In which case,
the file does not need to be ascii-armored, could use pgp's private key
encryption, and should remain reasonable in size ( if I'm not mistaken,
pgp compress it's files ). If I'm wrong about pgp compressing it's files,
please let me know, that will greatly complicate things.
> >From a development standpoint, that's very ugly and very messy, and I
> wouldn't be surprised if they say it will never happen...for the reasons
> listed above.
Yeah, but I can always hope. Actually, I noticed in another reply that
someone has a patch out. I'm looking forward to trying it out.
> I second the motion for a gzip-capable mutt though. (No wisecracks about,
> "Sure, just send in the patch!" either!) :)
Thanks. B-)
Sam
