>wouldn't that make us pretty much like the GNU MH-like thing that's >already in existence? (should we parrot any of their API's, in hopes of >creating a future generation of portable shell-level e-mail toolery?)
Well ... sort of? AFAICT, the MH part of mailutils was implemented to make MH-E work. From their documentation: The primary aim of this implementation is to provide an interface between Mailutils and Emacs using mh-e module. We've kind of gone our own way. And I have looked at their API; it's ... harsh? That may be unfair; I didn't dig deeply into it, and maybe it's unavoidable to be that way. I guess my point is that it does a lot of things, but my interpretation is that it's not so focused on providing a set of MH-like shell tools. I know you know this already, Paul; I'm only repeating it for the benefit of others. The Big Problem with a nmh IMAP backend is how to map nmh message numbers (which are persistent, can have gaps) to IMAP messages (which are either identified by a non-permament message number which ranges from 1-N without gaps or by UID, which is permament). AFAIK, Mailutils has not solved that problem. Maybe I'm wrong! If so, I welcome a correction. But I don't think that's their goal. So I think if you want something like nmh, but on IMAP folders, then we have to do it. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers