Ken Hornstein <k...@pobox.com> writes: >>Lack of From munging?
That was indeed the reason that I chose it. The thing about archives is that they are supposed to hang around for a long time. I’ve been using some form of mh since the 1980s, and the script that archives my mailboxes hasn’t changed much since then. > I suppose that's a reason, but it just seems like mbox has been the > standard for approximately forever and MMDF is one of those weird relics > like UUCP that I only hear about once in a million years. Which is a shame. One of the first things I learnt was that using in-band data as a separator is a bad idea, so mmdf was obviously a more sensible format than mbox. The last time I saw a “>From” that should have been a “From” in a mail body was much more recent than it should have been. >>> I think at this point MH/nmh is probably the only tool left that can >>> deal with such things. Well, it’s good that it still does. As I said, archives. -- Jón Fairbairn jon.fairba...@cl.cam.ac.uk http://www.chaos.org.uk/~jf/Stuff-I-dont-want.html (updated 2014-04-05) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
