Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cwjcc!hal!ncoast!telotech!bsa
From: bsa@telotech.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: MH verses the "all in one file" MUAs
Message-ID: <1989Jul16.034346.1636@telotech.uucp>
Date: 16 Jul 89 03:43:46 GMT
References: <113461@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <1518@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> <113567@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <681@scifi.UUCP> <WISNER.89Jul9144140@anableps.berkeley.edu>
Sender: bsa@telotech.uucp (Brandon S. Allbery)
Reply-To: bsa@telotech.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery)
Organization: _
	      telotech, inc. - Beachwood, OH
Lines: 13
In-reply-to: wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner)

Re: BABYL format duplicating headers

It's only wasteful from one viewpoint.  The other viewpoint is that, unlike
MH's "mhl" filter and mailx's (Mail's, for Berzerkers) "ignore" functionality,
BABYL applies header prettifying *once* and saves it, simplifying formatting
at display time.  This can make a big difference to someone reading mail:
compare the time for RMAIL mode to display a message, compared to MH-E with
mhl filtering enabled.

BABYL fulfills a different design goal; comparing its header storage format to
MH or mailx or mush, etc. is comparing apples and oranges.

++Brandon