Saturday July 27 2019 14:16, Eric Renfro wrote to Tommi Koivula:
TK>> Yes, there's nothing wrong with packing jamnntpd netmail. :)
ER>
ER> Hmmm, well, why would the jamnntpd/smapinntpd say that about hpt pack
then,
ER> which only does pack netmail? heh. Granted my netmail is JAM (and Netmail2
is
ER> fido *.msg)..
"Packing" netmail in hpt is really "sending" netmail. :)
Packing msgbase is something else.
ER> I'd be curious more about that. I specifically originally chose to have
JAM
ER> message bases because I wanted the ability to use JamNNTPd specifically,
but
ER> now that I know of and have SmapiNNTPD, I could go through the idea of
changing
ER> that, rescanning the messages to re-populate, to switch between them.
ER>
ER> If you could recall specifics on that that could be quite helpful for me,
ER> since.. Well, SmapiNNTPD supports Squish and JAM and *.msg because of
SMAPI. :)
I re-tested. Sqpack always renumbers, but "hptutil pack" does not renumber
squish base.
I still prefer not to purge/pack my messagebases that are used by
smapi/jamnntpd.
'Tommi
---
* Origin: ---------------------------------->> (2:221/360)
|