Re: [Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh

[Conrad Hughes]

Ken> export MHCONTEXT context-$$

.. I live and learn, thanks.

Ken> in the above scenario, what do you EXPECT nmh to do?

Well, from experience, I expect it to do what I tell it, even if that's
not what I intend :-/

My preference would be for actions (rmm, refile, repl) to note there's
been a context change and ask for confirmation, I think.  The machine is
better than I am at tracking consistency.  If context-in-this-window and
most-recent-context are different (or more particularly, the action
target (cur, most likely) differs between the two contexts), then there
is a significant chance I'm trying to do something other than what I
appear to be doing.

[Paul's use of -nochangecur noted with thanks; also noticed its use in a
 script recently posted to the list]

Another scenario (which I've gotten under control by iron discipline) is
that I sync my home directory among a variety of machines, several of
which can receive email.  This more-or-less corresponds to the IMAP
situation I think: a folder can change under your feet because
synchronisation updates the folder with state change from another
machine.

Taken to its ultimate conclusion, that means that context actually
should record both the full sequence of message-IDs (say) in all folders
*and* all mh_sequences.  As has been mentioned, that could impact
performance.

Wouldn't a similar consistency check catch IMAP changes too (contingent
on the suggested UUID <-> local number mapping)?

Conrad