[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh

From: Lyndon Nerenberg
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:58:04 -0700

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> wrote:
> There was a guy on this mailing list who's name escapes me right now ...
> who was a real bear when it came to insisting that nmh should stick to
> 100% POSIX compatibility.  You should talk to him.  What was his name
> again ....?

Oh bite me! :-)

You know this sort of thing falls well outside POSIX. It would be inside a 
non-portability #ifdef.

But if you want me to get all pedantic, I could write a protocol interface, 
spoken through a named socket - which is POSIX portable - through which anyone 
could write their own message store interface adapters as external interfaces.

Actually, that's my preferred scheme.  But it's not trivial to do – on either 
side – so FUSE seemed like a more practical solution.


reply via email to

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