Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)cmf(_dot_)nrl(_dot_)navy(_dot_)mil> wrote:
Chris Garrigues <cwg-dated-1028045524(_dot_)7c7f99(_at_)DeepEddy(_dot_)Com>
wrote:
More recently, the strategy that applications have used to implement (b) is
to
embed a language such as tcl instead.
The day that happens to MH/nmh will be the day that I switch to
using mutt.
Since the intersection of "people with cool ideas" and "people with
ability/time to implement said cool ideas" seems rather small at the
moment, I'm not exactly worried yet :-)
I agree there is no need to panic. I just wanted to register dissent
with the expressed view. But maybe I should have expanded on that
comment.
It is the accessibility of command line tools that makes nmh so
powerful. It is already in the 21st century, although a little buggy
in spots.
I use exmh, as you can see from the headers. But I also use the
command line tools. For example, if I want to lart an ISP for spam
received from that network, I have a shell script that does most of
the work of preparing my complaint. Some messages I preview with
command line tools before deciding whether to open in exmh -- this
avoids having to wait for garish pornography to be displayed before I
move the message to my spam folder. And then, even while using exmh,
I have put some shell scripts into the command line backend to
simplify my job. I expect many exmh users have done similar things.
-NWR