🚀 go-pugleaf

It seems that once again, the pace of usenet has affected this discussion.
Bill Wisner's previous reponse to my article has completely lost scope of
the discussion.  The note appears hostile, so I just assume drop that end
of the debate.  However, Brandon is several articles behind and makes some
unfortunate misconceptions about my intent... such is the case whenever
"religion" comes into any peaceful discussion. :-)  (note: BIG smile)

In article allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
> As quoted from <113567@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> by argv%eureka@Sun.COM (Dan Heller):
> 
> |   This may have changed lately -- I don't keep up
> | with MH that much (my loss, I guess).  Is it true that MH still only talks
> | to sendmail as its sole MTA?
See?  a *question* not a *statement*.  This is the major problem with
religious arguments.  Yet, it generates responses like this:
> Tell it to ncoast, which is AT&T System *III* (_not_ System V!).
> Tell it to telotech, which has a mini-SMTP program to let MH in "sendmail"
> mode talk to an ordinary mailer.
> Tell it to all the sites that use MMDF, for that matter.

In short -- relax.

> I personally use MH because, unlike you (apparently), I find it *extremely*
> *useful* to be able to access messages as files and use MH commands in
> pipelines (*anywhere* in pipelines).  Without even having to learn a new
> shell or pseudo-shell.  Then I can write shell scripts to do things for me.
> I find it difficult to imagine mush being implemented in such a way that I
> can change my scripts to use it.

You can do just about the same thing in mush.  The syntax may be a little
different than what you're used to with your csh scripts, but because mush
is built on the csh paradigm, chances are you don't have to learn anything
new.  In fact, I know many people who source their .cshrc from their .mushrc
so they can retain all their csh aliases, and stuff.  This isn't entirely
portable over, but conversion is simple enough that one script can support
both mush and csh.  In fact, just about everything you're used to doing in
MH can probably be done in mush.  The upside is that mush is much faster at
it.  The downside is that your scripts might have to be modified minimally.

And now, the apitome of a religious argument:  Putting words into one's mouth.
>   But suggesting that MH's implementation isn't useful in and of
> itself isn't acceptable.

I -never- said or imply that MH wasn't useful.  On the contrary, I've stated
several times that MH is a very good *and* useful program.  There is a
lot of good things about it.  My point was that I don't necessarily like it's
design implementation and feel that the same functionality could be done
more efficiently using another design methodology.


dan <island!argv@sun.com>
-----
My postings reflect my opinion only -- not the opinion of any company.