Bill wrote: > David Levine <[email protected]> writes: > > >> >I expect that there are: anything that's relative to the MH Path > >> >is susceptible. But again, there may be users out there who depend > >> >on it, and moreso than $TMP. > >> > >> I'm all for backwards compatibility, but in this case I'm with Lyndon: > >> I wouldn't even hesitate chucking this over the side. > > > > I hate it when upgrades break my configuration. And I know > > I'm not the only one :-) > > > > I'll look into deprecating it (".." in a folder name). I don't > > see a big rush to yank it, given the personal extent of nmh. > > Isn't making a relative MHTMPDIR relative to MH Path just as much a > change as disallowing relative paths?
No longer an issue: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2014-01/msg00070.html David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
