[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh @ gsoc?
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:36:43 -0500

>TLS seems to be already solved. However, why does nmh need TLS?
>Doesn't it delegate mail transfer to an MTA?

Actually, it's not solved, and the answer is twofold:

- It doesn't help the case when you're incorporating email (think POP
  over TLS)
- nmh can be configured to punt to a MTA, but it can also be configured
  to directly submit email to a server via SMTP.  Obviously this is where
  TLS would be useful.  There are plenty of discussions about one versus
  the other, but this is something plenty of people have asked before.

>IMAP is surely of interest. But I think this should not be the job of
>nmh, but of a FUSE layer below, as some already said.  There might not
>be the danger of too many storage backends, but conceptional, such
>stuff does not belong into a MUA. (Because I don't use IMAP, this
>would probably not be a good job for me.)

A FUSE interface for IMAP ... well, I guess I've heard worse ideas.
Fighting a land war in Asia, for example.

It is worth pointing that the amount of IMAP you would need to
implement 90% of nmh functionality is small.  The harder part would
be providing a reasonable user interface (e.g., what would an IMAP
folder look like in nmh?).  Nevertheless ... I don't think a SoC
project should fund a FUSE interface for IMAP.

>Lyndon said that nmh does not need someone like me to work on it.

Well, he's just ONE guy.  Last time I checked, he's not the nmh
Grand Master (I'm not sure who is, though :-) ).


reply via email to

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