[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] What is MH ?

From: Robert Elz
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] What is MH ?
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:53:26 +0700

    Date:        Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:25:06 -0500
    From:        "Mike O'Dell" <address@hidden>
    Message-ID:  <address@hidden>

  | my "unrmm" command (shell script) does mess with files directly, though,

Yes, this is one of the things that seem to be missing from MH, but
which really aren't - you can script unrmm or simply use mv if you
don't actually undelete all that often - mv has always been good enough
for me, but that may be because I only do it a couple of times a year
(which may be because I tend to be a bit lazy about deleting messages
in the first place...)

Another is that MH seems to have no command to alter the protections on
messages or folders - it has the profile entries to set the defaults,
but that's it - but of course, in reality it has the chmod command
(perhaps used together with mhpath) which does exactly what is needed.

Are those planning to extend the MH commands to support IMAP folders
planning to implement some new way to undelete, or change message protections,
etc., or are the mv and chmod (and tar, etc) commands all going to be
extended as well - or is this part of MH just going to be forgotten?

One final comment, after which I plan on leaving this issue alone - it keeps
being asked why anyone would object to adding some code, after all, everything
that's there now would still work, right?   And one assume that the new code
would be conditionally compiled, so it need not even necessarily make the
binaries any bigger or slower for those who don't need it.    There are two
things overlooked by this however - first anything like this (especially
anything this big) tends to make the sources just that much more unmanageable,
which can become a problem of its own.   But even more important, once done,
new "features" like this tend to become a road block to other progress, other
things can't get done, or can't be done easily, because there's no way to
make them work with the IMAP stuff (or other), and once people start to use
the IMAP (or any other similar) extension [aside: we have to assume that would
happen, or there would be no point even thinking about it, right?] they aren't
willing to give it up - and they also want whatever new feature is being
planned (perhaps threading, or ...)

  | as for "flame war", as KRE can attest, this discussion is nowhere close to
  | a genuine flame war.

Not within a kilometre ...    I was kind of surprised though at the accuracy
of the "forgotten" comment - my memory truly is apalling...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]