Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Chris Garrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>More recently, the strategy that applications have used to implement (b) is to >>>embed a language such as tcl instead. >>The day that happens to MH/nmh will be the day that I switch to >>using mutt. >Since the intersection of "people with cool ideas" and "people with >ability/time to implement said cool ideas" seems rather small at the >moment, I'm not exactly worried yet :-) I agree there is no need to panic. I just wanted to register dissent with the expressed view. But maybe I should have expanded on that comment. It is the accessibility of command line tools that makes nmh so powerful. It is already in the 21st century, although a little buggy in spots. I use exmh, as you can see from the headers. But I also use the command line tools. For example, if I want to lart an ISP for spam received from that network, I have a shell script that does most of the work of preparing my complaint. Some messages I preview with command line tools before deciding whether to open in exmh -- this avoids having to wait for garish pornography to be displayed before I move the message to my spam folder. And then, even while using exmh, I have put some shell scripts into the command line backend to simplify my job. I expect many exmh users have done similar things. -NWR
