gnus-mh.el

gnus-mh.el

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

I've never used mh-e or the Gnus interface to the same -- and the
interface just doesn't work properly.  I'd be most grateful if someone
who uses the gnus-mh stuff would look into the problem and try to come
up with code that works better.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen

Re: gnus-mh.el

[Steven L Baur]

>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no> writes:

Lars> I've never used mh-e or the Gnus interface to the same -- and the
Lars> interface just doesn't work properly.  I'd be most grateful if someone
Lars> who uses the gnus-mh stuff would look into the problem and try to come
Lars> up with code that works better.

The futility of dealing with the Gnus interface to mh forced me into
nnml, and I have no desire to switch back.  After having dealt with
both nnml and mh-e, I don't see much need to encourage use of mh-e.
It's terrible^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnon-graphical and clunky.  A better use
of resources might be to eliminate mh-e support and add some stuff to
nnml to replace it.

All that would be involved for that would be to maintain an mh style
unseen sequence file, and a reliable rebuild overview file function
per folder.  The latter is done right?

I see compatibility with an mh front end like exmh as being more
useful.  You can use nnml with exmh as is, the only thing really
lacking is keeping the mh unseen records up to date.

Comments?
-- 
steve@miranova.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be proofread for $250/hour.
Andrea Seastrand: For your vote on the Telecom bill, I will vote for anyone
except you in November.

Re: gnus-mh.el

[Dave Goldberg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 746 bytes --]


I use nnmh for my mail backend.  In addition to missing sequences (and
not just unseen, by the way), I've made my own functions for replying
and forwarding that are more closely tied to mh-e.  Doing it my way
causes conflicts between the Gnus and mh-e window config stuff and is
most certainly inefficient so given the thread about memory usage I
don't recommend it for anyone else :-) What I get are the annotations
on messages I've replied to or forwarded and I get to use my preferred
replcomps, both of which are important to me.  I guess that since I
don't use XEmacs I don't have a problem with mhe being non-graphical,
but I certainly agree about the clunkiness.  It's the reason I started
using Gnus for reading mail in the first place.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 128 bytes --]

Dave Goldberg
Post: The Mitre Corporation\MS B305\202 Burlington Rd.\Bedford, MA 01730
Phone: 617-271-3887
Email: dsg@mitre.org

Re: gnus-mh.el

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:

> The futility of dealing with the Gnus interface to mh forced me into
> nnml, and I have no desire to switch back.  After having dealt with
> both nnml and mh-e, I don't see much need to encourage use of mh-e.

Well, I was thinking about the functions in `gnus-mh' --
`gnus-mh-mail-setup' and stuff.  Many people seem to prefer using the
mh mail mode for composing/sending mail to using the standard sendmail
mail mode.  The problem is that the Gnus window configuration thingie
and the draft buffer stuff do not currently interact well with mh-e,
which also fiddles with the window configuration and creates its own
draft group.

So I was wondering if somebody could (please!) volunteer to clean that
stuff up somewhat.

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."

Re: gnus-mh.el

[Erik Selberg]

> Well, I was thinking about the functions in `gnus-mh' --
> `gnus-mh-mail-setup' and stuff.  Many people seem to prefer using the
> mh mail mode for composing/sending mail to using the standard sendmail
> mail mode.  The problem is that the Gnus window configuration thingie
> and the draft buffer stuff do not currently interact well with mh-e,
> which also fiddles with the window configuration and creates its own
> draft group.

I'm one of the chief culprits (and probably chief gripe... :). I think
the mh-e composing and sending is much better than standard mail,
although some things that ding has done recently have made standard
mail closer. The things I use from mh-e to compose / send are:

+ Better alias support (it's easy to have files containing names; the
  mail system we have here won't allow that)

+ Checking of recipients (you can ensure you typed in the right alias)

+ drafts folder so you can compose multiple messages at once (although
  I guess ding has that now as well)

What I think would be a great solution (well, maybe...:) would be to
create a totally new mail / post mechanism, overriding both mh-e,
mail, and post-news stuff. This way, we can do things right, and make
the interface much cleaner. For example, I'd love a mode where I can
just add To: and Newsgroups: header and have everything go into the
right place. Or stick newsgroup names in the To: field and have that
work too! An auto-aliasing thing like what pine has would also be nice.

> So I was wondering if somebody could (please!) volunteer to clean that
> stuff up somewhat.

ok, since I'm chief gripe, I'll see what I can do.

-Erik

Re: gnus-mh.el

[Roderick Schertler]

On 24 Feb 1996 03:02:55 -0500, larsi@ifi.uio.no (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen) said:
>
> Well, I was thinking about the functions in `gnus-mh' --
> `gnus-mh-mail-setup' and stuff.  [...]
>
> So I was wondering if somebody could (please!) volunteer to clean
> that stuff up somewhat.

Has anybody taken up this gauntlet?  If not I'm going to have a try at
it.  (My lisp is neither fluent nor idiomatic, though, so I'd be happy
to hear that somebody else has made some of this progress already.)

-- 
Roderick Schertler
roderick@gate.net

Re: gnus-mh.el

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Roderick Schertler <roderick@gate.net> writes:

> > Well, I was thinking about the functions in `gnus-mh' --
> > `gnus-mh-mail-setup' and stuff.  [...]
> >
> > So I was wondering if somebody could (please!) volunteer to clean
> > that stuff up somewhat.
> 
> Has anybody taken up this gauntlet?  

I don't think so...

> If not I'm going to have a try at it.

Great!

-- 
  "Yes.  The journey through the human heart 
     would have to wait until some other time."