Mark Fletcher:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 12:17:55AM +0100, Jochen Spieker wrote:
>>
>> The main problem is that one has to replace a few modules/functions,
>> mostly the long-obsolete rfc822. I think I can get away with throwing
>> away the get_filename function completely, which was a little
>> problematic due to the dependencies. I guess I have only "solved" the
>> easy problems for now, but I still think the conversion should be
>> doable.
>
> On digging around prompted by Brian's earlier input I found a
> conversation between a couple of other people and they seemed to start
> that process and then give up on the basis that it was a lot harder than
> they thought...
:-)
Yes, I was hoping that one could more or less blindly do a few simple
substitutions and get that code running again. But I guess if it was
that easy, somebody else would have already done that.
> I'm probably going to just write a python3 script of my own to handle my
> use-case, which is just to sift through /var/mail/<user> to delete mails
> older than a month. I've found the python3 "mailbox" library which
> includes support for mbox type mail files,
Yes, I am trying to use that for archivemail as well.
> which is what I think /var/mail/<user> is.
Yes, as others have already confirmed, those mailboxes are simple
mboxes.
> Looking at the API it doesn't look that hard, and I
> have to assume the complexity of porting archivemail comes either from
> the paradigm it operates in or from functionality it provides other than
> simply deleting old mail.
The problem is mostly that it was written for Python 2.3 using
deprecated modules that are not available anymore for Python3. But, I
have to day, email.utils and friend do provide a lot of drop-in
replacements for stuff from the old rfc822 module, at least according to
the docstrings.
> On my travels today I discovered mutt can do the job I want for me with
> a simple command, but I don't want to have to run mutt to do it
I was already wondering whether I should suggest this, but I assumed
that the requirement for interaction makes this a bad approach. It is
probably even possible to script this using mutt, but that would be a
hackish approach.
>> But well, first me or somebody else has to fix those failing tests.
>>
>
> Despite my decision to have a crack at writing something local for my
> own usecase, I do think it would be good if archivemail made a comeback,
> so I wish you well in that endeavour. I'd offer to help test but as I've
> illustrated, my usecase is very simple...
>
> (still, happy to test that usecase if it would be helpful)
I might get back to you about this, if I don't lose interest very
quickly.
Is anybody still using MH mailboxes?
J.
--
If I had to live on a desert island I would take a mobile phone,
preferably a Nokia 8810.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://archive.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature