[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?

From: Earl Hood
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Re: should nmh be an MTA or an MUA?
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:53:39 -0600

On January 28, 2010 at 10:39, Ken Hornstein wrote:

> >Fetching mail is also the job of a different tool.
> So, just so we're clear ... you want to remove the existing support for
> POP in inc as well?

I agree with Ken.

At some point, nmh must be able to read (incorporate) mail to
do its job.  I.e.  It must "fetch" the mail from something, somehow.

At the time MH was written, local spool files was all there is, but
things change.  POP came to be a legitimate (standard) delivery model,
so MH was adopted to support it.  From my understanding of the history
of MH development, the intent was to have it be in-sync with Internet
mail standards.  Remember, MH, early on, provided MIME support before
most MUAs did, and while attended UCI years ago, there was still some
active development with MH promoting this perspective.

Nmh should try to stay in-sync with Internet mail standards, not
relying on external tools to support features MUAs are expected to
support directly.  I think mail retrieval and submission are core
MUA functions, and an MUA should support the standard mechanisms for
doing so.


P.S.  Ideally, IMAP would be supported, but I think IMAP exposes
initial design decisions within MH that do not work well with the
IMAP model.  Personally, I could care less about IMAP support since
I've never needed to use IMAP, but I understand others desire to want
to support it w/o having to give up nmh.

reply via email to

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