[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again
From: |
Lyndon Nerenberg |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again |
Date: |
Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:24:18 -0700 |
On Oct 24, 2013, at 7:22 PM, Jerrad Pierce <address@hidden> wrote:
> Wouldn't a FUSE IMAP layer largely solve the problem of conflicts
> by working on the live data store? Perhaps a customization of
> something like:
No. nmh works in many places FUSE will never enjoin.
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Valdis . Kletnieks, 2013/10/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Alexander Zangerl, 2013/10/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/28
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Joel Uckelman, 2013/10/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, chad, 2013/10/25
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Todd M. Kover, 2013/10/31
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Jerrad Pierce, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again,
Lyndon Nerenberg <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Jerrad Pierce, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Ken Hornstein, 2013/10/24
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP, again, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/10/24