[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh
From: |
Chad Walstrom |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:15:41 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
Neil W Rickert wrote:
> nmh is rotten at the core. There is a lot of cruft, and probably
> buffer overflows galore in the many library routines.
Please excuse my blasphemous inquiry. Has anyone looked at the GNU
project "mailutils"? They've engineered their own MH access and
manipulation library, provided some compatibility between nmh and their
own mailutils-mh commands. It's not as complete as NMH, by any means,
but I would be interested to hear what NMH developers/users have to say
in comparison between the two projects. Should we promote some
cross-project seeding and sharing of information?
--
Chad Walstrom <address@hidden> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Jon Steinhart, 2004/09/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Ken Hornstein, 2004/09/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Harald Geyer, 2004/09/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Neil W Rickert, 2004/09/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh,
Chad Walstrom <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Bill Wohler, 2004/09/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh (mailutils), Jon Steinhart, 2004/09/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh (mailutils), Norman Shapiro, 2004/09/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh (mailutils), Ralph Corderoy, 2004/09/18
- [Nmh-workers] Mailutils status + wish for easier RPM packaging, Michael, 2004/09/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Chris Garrigues, 2004/09/21