On 11 September 2000 at 1:03, Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I just
> >hope that the implementation can preserve most of the strengths and
> >flexibility of nmh: it's the only email system with all this power,
> >and it'd be sad for the de facto IMAP implementation to hobble nmh.
>
> Argh. You've got it BACKWARDS!
>
> _Not_ having IMAP support is hobbling nmh.
I'm not saying that I think the IMAP support *will* hobble nmh, Ken.
I'm just saying that I hope it doesn't... and I'm giving examples of
places that I think it might have problems. I'm glad that people who
know IMAP better than *I* do (which, obviously, isn't very well!) are
discussing how to add IMAP support to nmh.
> we should support as many nmh features as possible, but the (IMHO)
> ridiculous desire for 100% MH compatibility has been what has doomed
> previous efforts.
I agree. When I said "there may not be a perfect one-to-one mapping
between nmh/exmh and IMAP. Some things may have to bend.", that's just
what I meant. I was hoping that the folks who do the work know about
the "margins" where nmh can be used -- in places and ways that other
MUAs can't -- so they support as many of those uses as reasonable.
It's good for folks to know what features nmh has, so they can make
*informed* choices about what features to support. In my experience,
a fair number of people (maybe especially those who've come to nmh
through exmh) don't know all that nmh can do. I'm trying to help.
Jerry
--
Jerry Peek, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.jpeek.com/
