I too thought this was kind of obvious. Here is more about my interest.
I have written slocal filters because I read about them in the MH book. Having done this, it would be convenient for me if I could run the slocal filters on new mail. At the moment I am mostly using inc with POP, because I read about that in the manual. I also sometimes use inc with a local file, usually the maildrop, and would like to apply filtering to that, but that happens infrequently enough that I am fine with not having filtering. inc puts the mails in a folder, and the purpose of my "newmail" program is to filter the mails after inc puts them in the folder. The approach is equivalent to setting a sequence, except that I use a folder instead of a sequence. This approach seems awfully silly; inc already parses the mails, so it could call slocal internally. Even better, slocal could be refactored so that inc could call a hypothetical slocal function. At the very least, slocal could accept a folder parameter for inputs. But the present situation is really fine as is, just clumsy. I think there are more interesting features to concern ourselves with. I am using inc and slocal just because they're included in nmh. These two could easily be replaced with other programs, but I figure I might as well use nmh because nmh has the feature and this way I don't need to install another program. If everyone in fact uses something else does, then maybe it's better to just remove these features and document how to interface with alternatives. Well, the basics of inc and slocal are established enough that I think they shouldn't change, but maybe I previously used getmail and IMAP. I recently had some trouble with emails that I receive being almost blank, (You can read about it on the getmail mailing list.) and then I decided to switch to inc with POP. A specific tangentially related minor issue I am having is that the inc -nochangecur switch doesn't work how I expect. inc called with this switch indeed does not change the current message, but it does change the current folder, and this can be mildly problematic if I am looking at mails while incorporating them. I forgot to respond to this one. Ken Hornstein writes: > >It seems strange to me that nmh doesn't include something like this. > > The answer to this statement is almost always, "Well, you know how it is ... > we all have jobs and lives" :-). But seriously, you know this is a volunteer > project, right? There are the pieces to do it yourself, and people have, > but I will admit a built-in capability would be nice. Lack of time, sadly ... You make it sound like the lack of capacity stemming from the volunteer nature of the project is bad. I disagree. nmh could never exist as a commercial project because it's too good and simple; in a company developing nmh, the workers would have to add lots of garbage features because otherwise nmh wouldn't look fancy enough and the workers wouldn't be working enough. I wanted to be sure that hadn't missed an exising feature before I wrote something myself. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
