On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 09:10:46PM -0600, Derek Martin wrote: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 11:20:37AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > Given that they're both Maildirs on the same filesystem, why doesn't mutt > > take this more efficient (both in time and disc space) approach? Just naive > > use of an existing "save-message" library routine. > > I find your surprise to be very surprising. :) > > - Copy = actual copy... implies multiple physical copies, which you > don't get with hard links
Or, to say it another way (from the manual): <save-message> s save message/attachment to a mailbox/file ln != save-message. Even if all your mailboxes are maildir. But FWIW one of the things I've been preaching for years is that Mutt's UI should not behave differently based on the message store. If your mail folders are mbox, making a hard link is completely nonsensical, and mutt's behavior ideally should be consistent regardless of the back end storage format. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpEip2RaA9C3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
