>> I have mail stored on an IMAP server. I think it's perfectly >> reasonable that I should be able to do "scan +IMAP:inbox" (or however >> you want to indicate that a particular folder is on an IMAP server; I > >Why not extend that to +mbox:inbox for mbox folders?
If someone wanted to do that, more power to them. >Seriously, though, perhaps you could consider extending msh to support >IMAP. At least in msh, users don't expect their scripts to work. I'd personally be happy with msh supporting IMAP. That would solve my problem. >I don't contend that this wouldn't have it's uses but I would argue that >a user-space filesystem would be far more useful. I have two technical concerns with a user-space filesystem. One is that right now it's rather unportable. The second is that if you want to use something like Kerberos (or anything that involves accessing credentials from a user's context) it is technically challenging to make the user's credentials available to the process performing the IMAP access. Both of those are solvable problems, but they're a lot of work. >And, like Robert, I have many scripts used in conjunction with MH. >Without similar IMAP support in these, MH doing IMAP would be of limited >use to me. But given that MH doesn't support IMAP now, it's not exactly a functionality loss, is it? But to be fair ... if your scripts used mhpath, then I think it would be relatively easy to do the right magic to make them work. Anyway, I've said my peace. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
