REPLY: 51.fido_jamnntpd@1:135/371 21a1cb45
MSGID: 2:221/360 5d40554e
TID: GE/32 1.2
CHRS: LATIN-1 2
TZUTC: 0300

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)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/2 19/10 154/10 203/0 221/0 6 360 226/17 227/114
SEEN-BY: 229/354 426 452 1014 240/5832 249/206 317 280/464 5003 5006
SEEN-BY: 280/5555 310/31 317/3 322/757 342/200 640/1384 5019/40
PATH: 221/360 6 280/5555 464 229/426