Ken wrote: > Okay, here's my thinking, for what it's worth: > > - "send" in my mind is mostly a front-end to "post" (or whatever you > have your postproc set to). You need to give it a already-formed > draft. > - mhmail is more of a replacement for "mailx"; it does the draft > composition for you. > > So I'm thinking ... well, I think putting a lot of mhmail > into send is the wrong way to go. Different tools and > all. We still have people using mhmail, so my vote would > be to simply fix up mhmail.
mhmail has traditionally been a front end to post, too. But it's now inadequate and it's a maintenance headache. I think that replacing it with a script that relies on send or post could solve both problems. Let me take a deeper look tonight and see what I come up with. Paul wrote: > i'll bet a patch to the man page would be welcomed! :-) Well put :-) So would contributions to the nmh test suite. That's a great way to learn more about nmh. Norm wrote: > mhmail has some features, that are relevant to writing quick > and dirty scripts and that send does not have: the -body, > -subject and -from switches, specifying recipients on the > command line, and taking the draft from the stdin. That's mhmail in a nutshell. Sounds like a job for a shell script, which could pass along other switches to send/post. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
