Using your argument, shouldn't the initial developers of mh just have used
the commonly available mbox format then? There are certain things gained
from the mh folder format, the people who cooked it up knew what they
wanted.
That's an interesting idea, and it'd be nice to hear more. Feel free to
reply just to me if you think it'd just be noise on the list.
I fail to understand what this discussion is all about. I agree that it
would be nice if inc could suck mail from imap, but how is having the
command line tools understand imap not outside of the scope of mh? This
sounds like it could make a fine fork from the mh code, but I fail to see
how such an addition can be classified as a part of mh. What is gained?
Does this even solve a problem?
Surely all the arguments that apply to using IMAP in the first place
for any email at all also apply to MH+IMAP. I can use MH from a number
of different machines because my home directory is NFS mounted within
a small network, but NFS is not appropriate for all situations.
Making this happen is going to require a lot of work. Making it work in a
way that isn't just bolting a bag a manure onto the side of the current
code will be a miracle.
I'll admit I haven't looked thoroughly at the IMAP spec, but from what I've
seen so far the mapping from MH commands to IMAP requests looks pretty good.
I don't see nmh living for much longer unless things change. Most projects
would be considered dead at this point, but somehow nmh is hanging on.
It's hanging on because there are still command-line users out there.
MH is the only command-line and shell oriented MUA that I know of.
Cheers,
- Joel
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers