> >>>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, "nmhworkers" == [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>> wrote: > > nmhworkers> While I was writing this into nmh the same feature > nmhworkers> was also put into exmh, but nmh would be a cleaner > nmhworkers> location? > > As the perpetrator of the change to exmh you're talking about, I > agree that putting it in nmh would have been better. But nmh > development is in somewhat of a state of disarray. Plus it was > less complex to have it in exmh than to hack it into nmh and > then have to write exmh in such a way as to work both with and > without the feature. If we get it into nmh, could we work together on getting exmh to coexist? I despair at having to write tcl, even after having bought Brent's book. :) > There are lots of exmh features that should be in nmh. Getting > them there and then getting them distributed has been a bit > problematic. I'm very dependent on my email, so if I can help in any way please let me know. Tobias
