I too thought this was kind of obvious. Here is more about my interest.
I have written slocal filters because I read about them in the MH book.
Having done this, it would be convenient for me if I could run the
slocal filters on new mail.
At the moment I am mostly using inc with POP, because I read about that
in the manual. I also sometimes use inc with a local file, usually the
maildrop, and would like to apply filtering to that, but that happens
infrequently enough that I am fine with not having filtering.
inc puts the mails in a folder, and the purpose of my "newmail" program
is to filter the mails after inc puts them in the folder. The approach
is equivalent to setting a sequence, except that I use a folder instead
of a sequence.
This approach seems awfully silly; inc already parses the mails, so it
could call slocal internally. Even better, slocal could be refactored so
that inc could call a hypothetical slocal function. At the very least,
slocal could accept a folder parameter for inputs.
But the present situation is really fine as is, just clumsy. I think
there are more interesting features to concern ourselves with.
I am using inc and slocal just because they're included in nmh.
These two could easily be replaced with other programs, but I figure
I might as well use nmh because nmh has the feature and this way
I don't need to install another program. If everyone in fact uses
something else does, then maybe it's better to just remove these
features and document how to interface with alternatives. Well,
the basics of inc and slocal are established enough that I think they
shouldn't change, but maybe
I previously used getmail and IMAP. I recently had some trouble with
emails that I receive being almost blank, (You can read about it on the
getmail mailing list.) and then I decided to switch to inc with POP.
A specific tangentially related minor issue I am having is that the
inc -nochangecur switch doesn't work how I expect. inc called with this
switch indeed does not change the current message, but it does change
the current folder, and this can be mildly problematic if I am
looking at mails while incorporating them.
I forgot to respond to this one.
Ken Hornstein writes:
It seems strange to me that nmh doesn't include something like this.
The answer to this statement is almost always, "Well, you know how it is ...
we all have jobs and lives" :-). But seriously, you know this is a volunteer
project, right? There are the pieces to do it yourself, and people have,
but I will admit a built-in capability would be nice. Lack of time, sadly ...
You make it sound like the lack of capacity stemming from the volunteer
nature of the project is bad. I disagree. nmh could never exist as a
commercial project because it's too good and simple; in a company
developing nmh, the workers would have to add lots of garbage features
because otherwise nmh wouldn't look fancy enough and the workers
wouldn't be working enough.
I wanted to be sure that hadn't missed an exising feature before I wrote
something myself.
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers