Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:09:13 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> Cc: ctm-users@freebsd.org, Andre Albsmeier <Andre.Albsmeier@siemens.com>, Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> Subject: Re: No deltas via email anymore? Message-ID: <201001210109.o0L19DpZ007399@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <201001210045.o0L0jJSk038082@fire.js.berklix.net> from "Julian H. Stacey" at "Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:45:19 %2B0100" References: <201001210045.o0L0jJSk038082@fire.js.berklix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 21st January 2010, "Julian H. Stacey" wrote: >Reason I imagined it would bet better with an option on send, >& auto detect on receive: > > There's perhaps people out there running CTM to distribute stuff > other than FreeBSD source (other *BSD src, other data, some binary > systems may have limited or no access to upgrade binaries except > at release upgrade. > > Such users might not be on this list, as this list is more for > the FreeBSD patches than the programs as such. So ideally a CTM > would have a format rev. no, & receivers would first be updated > to dual capable auto detect of old & new format, then later senders > would reduce length of CTM lines sent. ctm_rmail already works with any line length that is a multiple of 4. A change to 72 characters per line in ctm_smail does not require anyone to update ctm_rmail. We should just do it. It's safe. In principle a revision number is a good thing for every file and transport format, but at this late stage I doubt any benefit would be gained by adding one to the ctm email format. Stephen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201001210109.o0L19DpZ007399>