Re: [Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> But here's the thing I really want to get at.  People bring up FUSE
> as a viable interface for nmh to use for IMAP.  The point I'm trying
> to make is: as far as I can tell, a FUSE interface to IMAP does _not_
> solve the above problem; you still have to deal with it.  And I believe
> it makes it WORSE; each nmh command starts with a brand-new scan of a
> folder, so messages added or removed between commands work out fine.

But this makes it *your* turn to come up with an insane idea.

Waiting ...