Re: utf
On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 02:20:17PM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 12:58:57 PM deloptes wrote:
> > And regarding the mbox thing, well mbox was depreciated for many reasons. I
> > guess if it was that good it wouldn't be depreciated.
> Oh, I wasn't aware that mbox was deprecated--can you shed more light on that.
> AFAIK, it is not defined in an RFC and is used by quite a few email programs.
Not exactly deprecated, but it's considered a less reliable storage format,
because of potential problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbox
I converted to Maildir for better compatibility with the mu
indexing programs (package maildir-utils).
cheers,
--
Joel Roth
Reply to:
- References:
- utf
- From: mess-mate <mess-mate@gmx.com>
- Re: utf
- From: Nicolas George <george@nsup.org>
- Re: utf
- From: deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com>
- Re: utf