If it meant I could keep the front-end (shell) semantics but work with slightly different back-end objects, I would at least be able to exploit muscle memory.
in all other regards I think you're right. Fuse FS type overlay would make this entirely moot. I remember a few decades ago having similar feelings about "can we map MH onto IMAP" and the retorts were "yes, but you do it first" along with "no, and it's a stupid idea" and I think this "can we make MH work with more modern <x>" is the hisenberg problem of our age: we love the s/w but the rest of the world keeps on inventing things. STOP INVENTING THINGS! cheers -G On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 1:33 PM Ken Hornstein <[email protected]> wrote: > >What do people think? Could this work for a more natural (n)mh workflow > >with mail? > > > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jmap-filenode-04 > > I read this, and it seems like it's describing "NFS using the JMAP > protocol". Which ... does not seem to change anything from the nmh > perspective? > > If I'm wrong about this protocol, please, explain it to me! > > --Ken >
