why not use the mbox module

[martin f krafft <madduck@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear list(, dear John),
I just spent a flight between Zurich and Stansted looking over the
offlineimap code, and I noticed offlineimap comes with its own
Maildir implementation, despite of mailbox.Maildir and
mailbox.MaildirMessage. What's the main reason for that? That you
are actually storing UID and hash in the file name? If we could do
that with mailbox.MaildirMessage, would you consider a patch porting
offlineimap to mailbox.Maildir?

The reason I am asking is twofold: one, there are a couple of small
bugs in your implementation: #439384, and the link() and rename()
calls, which happily overwrite existing messages. And two: if we
started to hack on mailtags, it would make sense to do so in
mailbox.Maildir; then, offlineimap could immediately profit and
possibly support mailtags.

-- 
martin;              (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
 
kermit: why are there so many songs about rainbows?
fozzy: that's part of what rainbows do.
 
spamtraps: madduck.bogus@xxxxxxxxxxx

-- Attached file included as plaintext by Ecartis --
-- File: digital_signature_gpg.asc
-- Desc: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGz+g/IgvIgzMMSnURAu9GAKDYdO+HEKv+Pd3Sijg5ze50wAwRDgCdENja
vPjkOnEgLlubL36SFeZcFl8=
=oyd7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----