Subj : The latest official release
To   : Eric Renfro
From : Tommi Koivula
Date : Tue Jul 30 2019 17:27:09


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)

.