>The last time I remember IMAP support coming up was quite awhile ago, and
>the commentary (from Richard Coleman??) was that IMAP support probably
>wouldn't be forthcoming because IMAP would probably spell the eventual death
>of [n]mh. I don't recall a lot of posts disagreeing with that view, though
>I suspect if the subject were brought up again people would disagree.
I've always felt that _that_ particular view, was in a word, "crap".
The opposite is probably true; eventual lack of IMAP support might
be the death of nmh!
I've heard all of the naysayer arguments before, but really, it wouldn't
be _that_ hard. Well, okay, I can see some features being lost, but
most of the stuff would just sort of fall out once you wrote the
glue for the backend functions.
>The only other thing I remember from that discussion was that there were
>IMAP implementations out there that used [n]mh as a back-end.
I know of a few that use the storage format (one message per file, each
folder a directory), but I don't think that there are any that actually
use any code or tools from nmh.
--Ken
