Re: The continuing install-mh saga

2002-11-19 Thread Bill Wohler
Jon Steinhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but should it really be called install-nmh? No, nmh is pronounced MH. Note that Richard Coleman wisely called the new commands mhbuild, mhstore, and so on, not nmhbuild, nmhstore, etc. nmh is, and

Re: Working on the install-mh change questions

2002-11-19 Thread Earl Hood
On November 18, 2002 at 20:43, Jon Steinhart wrote: Oh, some details. 1. A second getenv() call would not break the code. The copy was really unnecessary. As pointed out earlier, making the copy may be needed depending on the implementation of getenv() for a given platform. And for all

Re: nmh 1.1?

2002-11-19 Thread Ken Hornstein
Is there any reason that 1.1-RC1 hasn't been promoted to a real 1.1? Mostly, because I'm a lame-ass. soon. I promise. There have been a few bugs (and patches) posted. Every time I get a new Redhat installation, I need to update inc 1.0.4 because it doesn't properly handle POP passwords

Re: The continuing install-mh saga

2002-11-19 Thread Eric Gillespie
Jon Steinhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, I didn't mean to start a flame war with my questions about the code. It's my opinion that nmh has about twice as much code as is really needed to do the job. That excess fluff makes the code harder to understand and maintain. So I'm gonna trim

Re: nmh 1.1?

2002-11-19 Thread coolman
Every time I get a new Redhat installation, I need to update inc 1.0.4 because it doesn't properly handle POP passwords (without a .netrc file). It would be nice if the released nmh didn't have this bug (which is arguably a bug in glibc ruserpass which they refuse to fix). So, are you

Improving attachment viewing

2002-11-19 Thread Bill Wohler
I've changed the Subject and included [EMAIL PROTECTED] since we've spent the last year improving MIME handling in Gnus since raw MH wouldn't work for us. We should be able to provide some suggestions which would allow us to use more MH and less Gnus. Peter? Satyaki? Jon Steinhart

Re: nmh 1.1?

2002-11-19 Thread Bill Wohler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It has been fixed. I was just grousing that the fix has been in CVS for a couple years but not in the Redhat distributions. Rather than grouse, switch to Debian GNU/Linux: nmh 1.0.4+dev-20010317-1 -- Bill Wohler [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG

Re: Improving attachment viewing

2002-11-19 Thread Jon Steinhart
I've changed the Subject and included [EMAIL PROTECTED] since we've spent the last year improving MIME handling in Gnus since raw MH wouldn't work for us. We should be able to provide some suggestions which would allow us to use more MH and less Gnus. Peter? Satyaki? Yeah, should

Re: Improving attachment viewing

2002-11-19 Thread Matthew Hannigan
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 08:42:42PM -0800, Bill Wohler wrote: This might be an intriguing option to some, but it should not be the default. Agreed. I'd use it sometimes. Matt If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane. Or in Britain or some ex-British colony!

Re: Improving attachment viewing

2002-11-19 Thread Neil W Rickert
Jon Steinhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I have in mind is twofold. First, I'd like to be able to optionally scan with message parts listed. Second, I'd like to be able to have an option to show/next/prev that says show the cur/next/prev message part. I just use mhlist next when I