nnml is diverging from other backends

nnml is diverging from other backends

[Kai Großjohann]

I notice that nnml is diverging from the other nnmail-derived backends
right now.  Maybe too few people care about the other backends...  Do
you think we should just let it slide, or should the new functionality
from nnml be copied to the other backends, too?

I kinda get the feeling that we're sitting on a gun powder box, here.
(What's the English idiom for this?)

kai
-- 
Symbol's function definition is void: signature

Re: nnml is diverging from other backends

[Jody Klymak]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> 
> I kinda get the feeling that we're sitting on a gun powder box, here.
> (What's the English idiom for this?)

powder keg.  

>From a naive nnimap/procmail user's point of view I kind of have to
agree - I never understand %10 of what you nnml people are talking
about ;-)

Cheers,  Jody

Re: nnml is diverging from other backends

[Harry Putnam]

Jody Klymak <jklymak@OCE.ORST.EDU> writes:

> powder keg.  

time bomb

Re: nnml is diverging from other backends

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> I notice that nnml is diverging from the other nnmail-derived backends
> right now.  Maybe too few people care about the other backends...  Do
> you think we should just let it slide, or should the new functionality
> from nnml be copied to the other backends, too?

It should be copied, but perhaps our efforts are best spent
elsewhere.  I mean, nobody uses nnbabyl and few use nnmbox.  nnfolder
has users, and nnimap has a rapidly growing number of users.  But nnml
is the mail backend that most people use, so I think it makes sense
that it is the most feature complete mail backend...

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen