Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?

[Ken Hornstein]

>Why? nmh doesn't need any new features, and the code is stable and 
>portable.
>
>The best indicator that a chunk of code is mature is when it hasn't been 
>touched for five years. It ain't broke, so leave it alone.

Uuuhhh ... yeah, okay.  That is certainly ONE possible interpretation.
Another possible (and much more likely) interpretation: no one uses nmh
very much anymore, so no one cares about fixing/improving it.  I don't
know about you, but when I go to look at a software package and I see
the last new release was 5 years ago, my first thought isn't, "Oh, it's
perfect!  That's why they stopped developing it!"; it's "Oh, I guess
that project is dead".

And in case you haven't been paying attention, we just had a user who needed
a feature which was just added within the last year.

Here are some obvious things people have asked about, repeatedly.

- TLS support
- IMAP support (I am not interested in arguing about whether or not this is
  a good idea, "breaks the MH model", or other such nonsense - the
  undeniable truth is that there are people who are interested in it).

Here are some pie-in-the-sky things I would like:

- Some sort of embeddedable language support for components files (I am
  partial to Tcl, but I don't have a strong preference).  Why?  Because
  I'd like to use different headers (like a different "from" line) for
  different mailing lists, and having an embeddable language that would
  be called to write component files would be really useful for that.
- Better handling for MIME parts when doing replies.  For example, telling
  "repl" just to take the text part when replying to multipart message.

--Ken