On 2004-02-25, Jason R. Mastaler penned: > Tim Legant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> No, tmda-pending is a little "thick". > > [...] > >> This is a good reason, so consider it noted as a potential >> enhancement. > > Well, it won't be enhanced by me. My position on the tmda-pending > tool at this point is the following. > > tmda-pending has probably amassed as many or more feature requests > than the rest of TMDA combined. I don't ever use tmda-pending, and no > one else works on it. This creates a natural conflict of interests. > > tmda-pending remains because the TMDA 1.0 pending queue format is > non-standard, and it gives users a tool to manipulate it who don't > want to write their own. tmda-pending in its current form will be > supported on this list until I retire the 1.0.x series. No new > features or capabilities will be added to tmda-pending. > > I will instead put my efforts into a new pending queue abstraction > that will result in a number of possible formats, notably Maildir, a > de-facto standard which has many tools, libraries, and MUAs that > support it. Thus, you will be able to manipulate your pending queue > with much more versatile and powerful tools than the crappy > tmda-pending script. > > Once this happens, tmda-pending will be removed from the TMDA 1.1.x > distribution. tmda-pending is a good candidate for a separate project > maintained and developed by users who have still have interest in it.
Just to clarify what I think you've said: There will always (probably) be some way of directly manipulating tmda's pending queue; the future form, however, will look like a generic mailbox and therefore be accessible by the usual suspects. I, as the one freak out there who uses TMDA's HOLD setting rather than CONFIRM, would like to be sure that I can always see the messages in the queue in some way =) -- monique _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
