On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 09:35:16AM +0200, Stephan Aßmus wrote: > Am 15.04.2011 01:29, schrieb Donn Cave: > >See, to me, a filesystem is a way that you can do everything with cat. > > > >If we already have a mail daemon, and we are going to need a mail app > >anyway to make anything happen with special ioctls, we might as well > >use BFS and just assign a mail application to manage the files in the > >way you describe, with a scripting interface for any external applications > >that might want to be involved. Not much extra value added by making it > >a special filesystem. > > Exactly. I think there is no advantage in doing IMAP as an FS if a > special ioctl is needed. In my other reply I have tried to explain why I > think it's a better idea to deal with possible delays in the clients. > I've been following this discussion, but haven't commented because I've never delved into the area much. However, I'm beginning to think that something basic is being missed... [Or maybe it's just me that's missing something (:-/)] To me, the advantage of a 'file' as it's known to most FSs is that it is just a linear bunch of bytes. Any structure to the data in the file is provided by the app(s) that handle that particular type of file. A mail message, though, *does* have a particular structure (header, text body and possible attachments), so it's always going to need specific apps to handle it. Exposing entire mail messages in a file-system seems to me to have no advantage (over a daemon approach), as it will be useless to anything except the apps that understand mail. I do have one slightly radical suggestion though, that might make a FS more generally useful. Make each message its own *folder*! The main text and any attachments would then become files in that folder, with appropriate mime-type. Perhaps the header itself could actually be an attribute of the folder. The 'files' in the folder would of course be empty until a read was requested of that particular one. Base64 decoding or whatever would also be done at that point, so if the attachment is a jpeg, you would get a displayable image. What d'you think? -- Pete --