Re: [Nmh-workers] mhmail

[norm]

David Levine <address@hidden> writes:
>Ken wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering ... do you really think these gyrations are appropriate
>> for mhmail?
>>
>> Back in "the day", needing to change the server used by post and
>> friends was very rare, so putting it all in mts.conf was reasonable.
>> But now we have alternate ports and changing servers is more common
>> (it occurs to me that there's no way of specifying an alternate port
>> via mts.conf for email submission).  We also have options for SASL
>> and TLS, which are also not configurable via mts.conf (although
>> maybe they should be?).
>>
>> So I'm actually thinking that maybe it makes sense to have mhmail
>> pass through various post options (kinda like what "send" does now).
>
>I noticed that last night when I tried to write a test for
>it and saw that it needs a port option.
>
>Should we consider putting an end to the current mhmail?
>mhmail's man page says that it is "compatible with nmh", but
>it looks like that just means it reads mts.conf.  With the
>shortcomings you noted.
>
>Can we make send look like mhmail (mhmail with arguments, when
>sending)?  Then mhmail could be a simple wrapper around it.
>The only thing we'd lose is that it would read the profile and
>aliases, but I don't see those as a drawback these days.  If
>it is important, we could add an option to send to not read
>them.
>
>mhmail when invoked without arguments is inc, but without
>any command line overrides of inc's profile settings.
>
>mhmail, when sending, is busted in 1.5:  try it without -from.
>So now's our chance.

mhmail has some features, that are relevant to writing quick and dirty scripts
and that send does not have: the -body, -subject and -from switches, specifying
recipients on the command line, and taking the draft from the stdin.


    Norman Shapiro