Re: [sup-talk] current state of synching upstream?

From: Daemian Mack <daemianmack@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Pimlott <andrew@pimlott.net>
Cc: sup-talk <sup-talk@rubyforge.org>, sjh <sjh@foolishpride.org>
Subject: Re: [sup-talk] current state of synching upstream?
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:11:01 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1271072587-sup-4970@lenin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1271048365-sup-3959@pimlott.net>

Excerpts from Andrew Pimlott's message of Mon Apr 12 01:02:07 -0400 2010:
> Excerpts from Rich Lane's message of Sun Apr 11 17:57:42 -0700 2010:
> > Does anyone use the current sup-sync-back that only support mboxes? If
> > there are no strong objections then the 0.12 sup-sync-back will only
> > support maildir.
> 
> It wouldn't kill me to lose it, but I use it, and think on principle it
> would be better to have an overlap period.

I use sup-sync-back with mbox. I agree with Andrew that overlap would
be a good thing in principle, though personally speaking, I'll
probably take this change as a nudge to convert to maildir. My mbox
files get pretty large (~80-100Mb) between sup-sync-backs, and working with those
files on my aging mail box (1.6GHz Athlon XP) gets pretty clunky in the meantime.

Also looking forward to more interclient operability!

Any interest in kicking off a simple usage survey to find out how
people are using sup? I'd be really curious to see things like...

- the mailstore formats being used
- whether most people use sup as their sole MUA or as one of many
- how multi-MUA users handle working with multiple clients
- the various daily sup workflows in use

Might be helpful from a "what's going on out there" roadmap
perspective, too.
-- 
http://daemianmack.com/

_______________________________________________
sup-talk mailing list
sup-talk@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk