[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] It's mh_profile(5) and mts.conf(5).

From: Ralph Corderoy
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] It's mh_profile(5) and mts.conf(5).
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:47:58 +0100

Hi Valdis,

> > Here are man pages sourced by other "one line" man pages.
> >     man5/mh-profile.5 ← man/mh_profile.man
> >     man5/mh-tailor.5 ← man/mts.conf.man
> >
> > The files they document are $HOME/.mh_profile and /etc/nmh/mts.conf.
> > I don't think mh-profile(5) and mh-tailor(5) should exist or be
> > referred to;  it's just confusion and clutter.
> Keep mh-profile.  It's useful to have all (or almost so) things
> possible in a config file documented in one place. Also, where exactly
> are you planning to exile all the "standard profile entries" to?

I was suggesting ditching mh-profile(5) because the identical content is
in mh_profile(5) and the latter better matches the name of the
configuration file.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I guess going forward a non-m_getfld(), non-RFC-822-header, ~/.nmh* with
a more sane syntax might appear, taking priority over the old-school
configuration, so that would be another opportunity to rationalise the

> (Though this *still* leaves the question of whether the Signature:
> block needs proper quoting if it contains non-ascii or rfc-problematic
> punctuation....

A brief experiment suggests it's used unaltered in %(myname) and
(localmbox), following mh-format(5).  How it's then handled depending
where they're used...

Cheers, Ralph.

reply via email to

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