[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > I haven't actually tried your code, so I might be on the wrong track > here... still, I've got some comments about c. Instead of recursive > search upwards, can we assume that people who want to use this feature > would simply make *links* (hard or soft), from whatever folders they > create, into a master copy (somewhere) of the component files they > want to use in that folder? It seems to me that a link is a fine way > to propagate particular components files to the folder(s) where > they're wanted.
Depends. The way I use it, I have 368 folders. I don't want to manage the comps files for those folders by hand. For example, for stuff related to my company neatech, I have a folder with subfolders per project. I often create these folders on the fly. Having to symlink more than 5 files for each mbox creation would get annoying, ensuring I would forget stuff. Even more, I create archive folders automatically for mailing lists, and some other folders, like 'folder/y2002/m07/d04'. To still be able to reply correctly from such a folder would require auto- symlinking loads of comps files. I just like inheritance. This inheritance does mean that nmh expects the structure of your folders to correspond more or less with the structure of your comps files needs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Using links (instead of a recursive search upwards) would also let > people *block* the feature (and use the default components files in > the nmh directory, I guess), in any particular subfolders where they > want to. Linking a subfolders compsfiles to the default would allow you to do the same in a different way. [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > Still, there *are* times when using components in a public folder > would be good. I think they would even be especially useful, just more dangerous security-wise. Tob
