Since we are thinking out loud, here goes. On 12/11/03 00.00, Allister MacLeod wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:31:42PM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote: [snip] > > fileserver (Plan9-style - I really like a lot of aspects of that system). > > That way, you can use plain ordinary UNIX commands to fool with your mail. > > (Imagine cp(1)ing a message from one folder to another, for instance.) > > Hmm.. Sounds powerful and fun, but perhaps a bit less portable than > mutt (and even mutt+Guile or mutt+Python). Just off the top of your > head, do you know how feasible such shenanigans are on Linux? I think > it would perhaps take some daemons and hackery, but might be within > reach. There is such a thing as a userspace filesystem, although it is not a standard thing (yet, when you think about it for a while, it makes good sense). That might be a way to do it, but it would naturally need some kind of deamon doing the actual work. An portability would be a bitch. > > Obviously, you'll want a bunch of utility programs (like formail) to > > help out with tasks like making replies, etc. (Another neat option > > is to simply vi(1) the /reply file within the message. Note that in > > Plan9's mail, you can access the MIME parts of a message by accessing > > files inside it as if it were a directory. There's no reason why replies > > can't be implemented the same way.) However, since we're hooking our mail > > How does the mail system differentiate, when write() is called, > whether to save as a postponed letter, or to send? Do you / would you > just copy the message into an "outbox" directory or something? Maybe move the reply to "outbox" to queue it for transmission. Then a new /reply file could automatically be created in its place. > > up to the UNIX system instead of building our own system just for mail, > > we gain the ability to write scripts/modules/addons/etc. in ANY language > > that we have a compiler/interpreter for, provided it can do useful stuff > > (e.g. fork(2) and exec(2) programs, unlink(2) files, etc.). Embedding a > > scripting language doesn't seem like the "right" solution to me. > > Well, yes, I would imagine mutt-guile would really only appeal to > that breed of kitchen-sinkers who think Emacs is the coolest thing > since sliced bread. (And don't use GNUS because they've been using > mutt for so long.) The ability to define compound functions and > powerful macros, as you pointed out, is a hallmark of bloatware. May > as well get the bloat over with, I say :^) Very true, sounds like something to I ought to have a go at (if I can fit it in with all the other patches ;-)). /dossen
Attachment:
pgpv4oUN2xlBr.pgp
Description: PGP signature