Subject: Pine 4.40 problem

From: Don Newcomer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:52:18 -0400 (EDT)

I've just installed version 4.40 on my Alpha box runing Tru64 UNIX version
4.0D.  Everything appeared to be working fine until went to the folders
command and told it to select all folders with unseen messages.  It goes
through all of the folders and then I get the message "Received abort
signal", it dumps core, and exits.  Any idea what the problem might be?

================================================================================
Don Newcomer                                            Dickinson College
Associate Director, System and Network Services		P.O. Box 1773
[email-masked]                                  Carlisle, PA  17013
                                                        Phone: (717) 245-1256
                                                          FAX: (717) 245-1690

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Eduardo Chappa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:34:06 -0700 (PDT)

*** Don Newcomer ([email-masked]) wrote in the pine-info list today:

:) I've just installed version 4.40 on my Alpha box runing Tru64 UNIX
:) version 4.0D. Everything appeared to be working fine until went to the
:) folders command and told it to select all folders with unseen messages.
:) It goes through all of the folders and then I get the message "Received
:) abort signal", it dumps core, and exits. Any idea what the problem
:) might be?

Dear Don

 I have found the problem to be solved if you apply the patch that you can
find in my web page (address below), look under "bug fixes".

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

---

From: Don Newcomer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 10:24:27 -0400 (EDT)

Thanks, Eduardo.  That patch did the trick nicely.

                                                Don

---

From: Seby <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:49:06 +0300 (EEST)

Why pine 4.40 doens't support maildir.. it should suport maildir,
because maildir it used in almost everyserver in the world, so i think you
should include maildir support in pine.. or give an officeal patch...

	Thankyou...

	And I hope pine 4.41 will have maildir support ....

Seby...

---------------
				http://lapd.cj.edu.ro/~seby
				E-mail: [email-masked]
---------------

---

From: David Dyck <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:14:59 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Seby wrote:

> 	Why pine 4.40 doens't support maildir..

A quick search with google leads to

http://www.washington.edu/imap/documentation/formats.txt.html

      The Maildir format used by qmail has all of the performance
 disadvantages of mh noted above, with the additional problem that the
 files are renamed in order to change their status so you end up having
 to rescan the directory frequently the current names (particularly in
 a shared mailbox scenario).  It doesn't scale, and it represents a
 support nightmare; it will therefore never be supported in the
 official distribution.  Maildir support code for c-client is available
 from third parties; but, if you use it, it is entirely at your own
 risk (read: don't complain about how poorly it performs or bugs).

( actually I got there via
   http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/.
where they were they referenced
the earlier url, their conclusion were: ...

    The final conclusion is that -- except in some specific instances --
    using maildirs will be just as fast -- and in sometimes much faster --
    than mbox files, while placing less of a load on the rest of the mail
    system. The claims in the UW-IMAP server's documentation regarding
    maildir performance can be supported only in certain, specific, very
    narrowly-defined conditions.  There is no simple answer on which mail
    storage format is better. A lot depends on many variables that vary
    widely in different situations. Besides the raw benchmarks shown above,
    other factors include the mail server software being used, what kind of
    storage is being used, and the available network bandwidth. The final
    answer depends on all of the above.

Sounds like it may not be an easy answer...

---

From: Seby <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:28:54 +0300 (EEST)

OK, i undestand that, but let say that some people like pine and
maildir .. so  the develepment teem of pine can includ a maildir suport in
pine (or a patch that can be patch on pine if that people like to use pine
withs maildir suport) .. And about performance , maybe that people have a
super computer :)) and they don't wory if the system is a little of 2%
overload than in normal cases.. so i say that pine has to includ maildir
and mailbox suport .. in the same source .. and a user can chose at
compile time which type of maildir want's .. this will be better ...

This is my opinion ..

Seby...

---------------