Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >IMO, it's rare because people these days don't think of being able to
> >do it; they're used to GUI mail front-ends that don't allow (?) this
> >kind of thing.
>
> Use an IMAP client recently?
Well, he made it clear that he hadn't. Lots of us nmh folks appear to be a
bit ignorant about the intracacies of IMAP since, well, we use nmh for our
mail.
> "Shared" mailboxes are already part of
> the IMAP specification. Most reasonable ones deal with them just
> fine.
>
> >This is why I'm writing my tomes ;-) about not losing nmh flexibility
> >with IMAP, wherever it's reasonable to keep it.
>
> Well, the real crux of the problem is that there are some things that
> you simply cannot _do_ within the context of IMAP. The big one that
> comes to mind is annotations (there really isn't a way to modify
> messages on the server, from my reading of the specification).
Ouch, that really bites. That was one of the first questions that popped
into my mind when I first started hearing about IMAP, but I've been too lazy
to find out if you could do that or not. The fact that messages are
individual text files is one of the biggest wins of nmh for me. With all
the crappy mail clients out there that do things like force line wrapping
even if it breaks a long URL, I often find myself reformatting mails. I
know you can get much of the same advantage by forwarding the mail to
yourself and editing it then, but then the From: is wrong and such (too bad
you can't edit a dist'ed mail).
If there's no way to replace a message on the server with a local version,
then if nmh does local caching of IMAP messages, modification of those
messages will definitely be an issue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkless | To prevent SPAM contamination, please
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | do not post this private email address
SpeedGate Communications, Inc. | to the USENET or WWW. Thank you.
