>But one of the the trade offs relevant to the existing or prospective nmh user >is the extent to which nmh still supports "All power to the user". mh-format >constitutes a real barrier to "All power to the user", for all but the most >sophisticated of users. I also agree that any further significant effort on >mh-format is probably ill advised.
I understand that concern; believe me, I do. That's one reason we've been talking about providing more examples for mh-format, so rather than having to write one from scratch you could just use one of the examples (or just take pieces from one of the examples). >The option would be -exec procedure_name, or if you like, -eval >procedure_name. If present, then procedure_name would be invoked for each >message. procedure_name's stdout would completely replace each scan line. It >would not redirect stderr. A non-zero exit status would be an error. For each >component, comp, of a message, it would define an environment variable, >NMH_FORMAT_comp, whose value was the content of that component. I think that has most of the same security problems that the equivalent function in mh-format has. Also, there are some things that would make it hard to re-implement the existing scan format (like %(mymbox)). It's probably solvable, but I personally don't think it's worth it. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
