Re: [Nmh-workers] mhmail

[David Levine]

Ken wrote:

> Okay, here's my thinking, for what it's worth:
>
> - "send" in my mind is mostly a front-end to "post" (or whatever you
>   have your postproc set to).  You need to give it a already-formed
>   draft.
> - mhmail is more of a replacement for "mailx"; it does the draft
>   composition for you.
>
> So I'm thinking ... well, I think putting a lot of mhmail
> into send is the wrong way to go.  Different tools and
> all.  We still have people using mhmail, so my vote would
> be to simply fix up mhmail.

mhmail has traditionally been a front end to post, too.
But it's now inadequate and it's a maintenance headache.
I think that replacing it with a script that relies
on send or post could solve both problems.

Let me take a deeper look tonight and see what I come up
with.


Paul wrote:

> i'll bet a patch to the man page would be welcomed!   :-)

Well put :-)  So would contributions to the nmh test suite.
That's a great way to learn more about nmh.


Norm wrote:

> 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.

That's mhmail in a nutshell.  Sounds like a job for a shell
script, which could pass along other switches to send/post.

David