From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 10:22:59 +0530
From: Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh@kathe.in>
To: sl@9front.org
In-Reply-To: <3B648B1B56B7F372B8E8ADAE7AE3D0B3@ewsd.inri.net>
References: <3B648B1B56B7F372B8E8ADAE7AE3D0B3@ewsd.inri.net>
Message-ID: <068ee82396697ec3ca3224431123d372@kathe.in>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.2
Cc: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: Re: [9fans] upas : without acme : possible?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: efeeefa4-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 2018-11-30 10:10 AM, sl@9front.org wrote:
> It's not clear why you think the interface provided by upasfs(4) is
> captive, or why you insist acme needs to be involved at all. I'm
> writing this message with nedmail/marshal, connected to Plan 9 in a
> plain SSH terminal session -> OpenBSD -> drawterm -G. No GUI or
> terminal frills or frippery is involved.

wow, i'll definitely check out nedmail/marshal.
btw, i don't think the interface provided by upasfs might be captive,
it's the mail/mailx interface which is so damn painful (from a usage
philosophy perspective).

~mayuresh