Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

If MH had a foundation who would find raise due to the gpl if support that goal. Otherwise we have to avoid it, or in this case, ignore it. On September 26, 2016 8:23:25 PM MDT, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > >> On Sep 26, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Date:Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:50:19 -0400 From:Ken Hornstein Message-ID: <20160926205020.85fad41...@pb-smtp2.pobox.com> | I could probably do a NetBSD port version; That's pkgsrc, a NetBSD port is the OS for a different architecture. nmh is in pkgsrc

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 7:13 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote: > > Well, I just looked; Jerry Peek's original MH book is now under the > GPL. So we can crib from that I think, as long as proper attribution > is given. Oh gawd I don't want to get into the GPL debate, but ... MH started

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

>As a start, what do we have for prior art that has been let go by the >previous copyright holders? We have (I think) three people on this >mailing list who are authors of non-trivial works. Culling those into a >single, new, document, could work well. But something under 400 pages >would be

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

> Weeelll ... are you volunteering to write a nmh User Guide? :-) No. But I might edit one. > I > don't think the issue is troff know-how, or packaging ... it's getting > someone to sit down, fingers to keyboard, and type out a clear document. As a start, what do we have for prior art that has

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Ken Hornstein writes: > Weeelll ... are you volunteering to write a nmh User Guide? :-) I > don't think the issue is troff know-how, or packaging ... it's getting > someone to sit down, fingers to keyboard, and type out a clear document. > As far as I know, there is no nmh package that does not

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 6:47 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote: > >> No, if the man pages are lacking, we need to fix that. >> >> If there is real demand for an "nmh User Guide" I'm pretty sure we can >> cook one up. And have long thought we should. But it needs to be part >> of the core

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

>No, if the man pages are lacking, we need to fix that. > >If there is real demand for an "nmh User Guide" I'm pretty sure we can >cook one up. And have long thought we should. But it needs to be part >of the core distribution, and formatted using troff, just like the rest >of the documentation.

[Nmh-workers] document formatting (here we go ...)

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: > > let's boost our outreach to repackagers, find out what they need, and provide > it. there's a win+win in here somewhere. What stuns me is how people can write thousands of lines of perl to format documentation, with the

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: Call me Grumpy[2], but any system with a packaged install of nmh that doesn't include the man pages[1] is broken. So yes, that's a non-starter in my books. It's not a scenario to cater to, because the fix is to not break the packages in the first place. you are not

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > > nobody said the local man pages would go away, and nobody said the > online copy of documentation would be the only copy. but some people > do, sometimes, work on machines without man pages, or without >

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

lyndon wrote: > Linking to documentation on web sites is a non-starter. MH is, by > definition, an "off line" MUA, and many of us use it that way. > Being denied access to the documentation because we don't have a > live Internet connection is just silly. nobody said the local man pages

Re: [Nmh-workers] TLS certificate validation

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Jeffrey Honig wrote: > > Any system that does not maintain up-to-date certificates is just broken; an > invitation for security vulnerabilities to be exploited in situations where > expired or revoked certificates can be exploited. Validating

Re: [Nmh-workers] TLS certificate validation

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 9:00 AM, David Levine wrote: > >> I've been poking around and I see that there is something that MIGHT >> be worthwhile to look at: something called "trust on first use" (TOFU) > > Sounds good to me, I'd use it. FWIW, this is how Plan 9 (IMAP) does it.

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

> On Sep 26, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote: > > I could probably do a NetBSD port version; can someone take the FreeBSD > ports system? I know we have some OpenBSD users here; I think that > covers the majors. If the FreeBSD port has been orphaned I can take that on.

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

> On Sep 25, 2016, at 3:19 AM, Laura Creighton wrote: > > Yes, but I need my .mh_profile to work _everywhere_ including on machines > that are purposely not set to utf-8 so we can test software there. There's no way you're going to get that level of portability out of a single

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

> On Sep 25, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Laura Creighton wrote: > > If we have a git page, and this for browsing the source > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/nmh.git > > then we ought to find it easy to make the docs as git-browsable as > the code, no? No, if the man pages are

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

> On Sep 25, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Paul Fox wrote: > > any reason we couldn't in principle have a separate git tree on > savannah just for "compiled" man pages, and other docs? MH (and by descent nmh) is by definition a command line tool. It assumes a command line

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:57:43 +0100, Ralph Corderoy said: >> And nmh in Fedora, but it's not in a Red Hat? > It's not in the EPEL repos either (which are basically extras > from Fedora built for Red Hat). Might be hard to get it into > Red Hat without somebody at

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Ken wrote: > >> It's not in the EPEL repos either (which are basically extras > >> from Fedora built for Red Hat). Might be hard to get it into > >> Red Hat without somebody at RH taking it under its wing, but > >> EPEL is controlled by Fedora, so probably could the Fedora > >> package owner to

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

>> It's not in the EPEL repos either (which are basically extras >> from Fedora built for Red Hat). Might be hard to get it into >> Red Hat without somebody at RH taking it under its wing, but >> EPEL is controlled by Fedora, so probably could the Fedora >> package owner to roll an EPEL version?

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 18:57:43 +0100, Ralph Corderoy said: > And nmh in Fedora, but it's not in a Red Hat? It's not in the EPEL repos either (which are basically extras from Fedora built for Red Hat). Might be hard to get it into Red Hat without somebody at RH taking it under its wing, but EPEL

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Hi Ken, > I believe we are available via the package systems on a number of > modern Linux variants. Would visitors benefit from a list of package names for the popular systems? Perhaps on http://www.nongnu.org/nmh/ so they see there's not much of a hurdle to trying it out, compared to building

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Hi Mark, > > If it's a simple package install then I'm not too surprised. I > > often find myself on others' machines without root access and put in > > a request for a raft of useful packages. The local admins skim > > through the list, see they're all straightforward command-line > > stuff,

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

>I'd say that we should broaden our idea of 'centrally managed' to include >binary packages available through an OS distribution's package management >system. Perhaps that will change the way that some configuration choices >are made (ie., run-time vs compile time). I believe we are available

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

In the message dated: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:01:22 +0100, The pithy ruminations from Ralph Corderoy on were: => Hi Ken, => => > I kind of think that the days of nmh being installed on centrally => > managed systems is slowly coming to an end. Installed prior to user requests, installed because

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Laura wrote: > In a message of Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:57:19 -0400, David Levine writes: > > >How about this, in nmh(7) and the output from install-mh(1): > > This looks good to me. Thanks. I added it (along with where to subscribe to the mailing list) to the nmh(7) man page and the end of the

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

In message <20160924181942.1c6703b...@pb-smtp2.pobox.com>, Ken Hornstein writes : >>Just FYI, I was pointed to replfilter a while ago, tried it, and it >>crashed more often than not so wasn't usable. Been too busy with >>other stuff to look at it, so I'm just pointing it out, not complaining. >

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Hi David, > > any reason we couldn't in principle have a separate git tree on > > savannah just for "compiled" man pages, and other docs? > > Is there really a need? Well, I suppose if http://www.nongnu.org/nmh/ could point visitors to something that looked like https://manned.org/nmh.7, perhaps

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Hi Ken, > I kind of think that the days of nmh being installed on centrally > managed systems is slowly coming to an end. If it's a simple package install then I'm not too surprised. I often find myself on others' machines without root access and put in a request for a raft of useful packages.