But one of the the trade offs relevant to the existing or prospective nmh user
is the extent to which nmh still supports "All power to the user". mh-format
constitutes a real barrier to "All power to the user", for all but the most
sophisticated of users. I also agree that any further significant effort on
mh-format is probably ill advised.
I understand that concern; believe me, I do. That's one reason we've been
talking about providing more examples for mh-format, so rather than having
to write one from scratch you could just use one of the examples (or
just take pieces from one of the examples).
The option would be -exec procedure_name, or if you like, -eval
procedure_name. If present, then procedure_name would be invoked for each
message. procedure_name's stdout would completely replace each scan line. It
would not redirect stderr. A non-zero exit status would be an error. For each
component, comp, of a message, it would define an environment variable,
NMH_FORMAT_comp, whose value was the content of that component.
I think that has most of the same security problems that the equivalent
function in mh-format has. Also, there are some things that would make
it hard to re-implement the existing scan format (like %(mymbox)).
It's probably solvable, but I personally don't think it's worth it.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers