lynx-dev Re: nature of the list, eek (was: When I tell a Webmaster...)

[Heather]

> >     * Subject: Re: lynx-dev When I tell a Webmaster about Lynx
> >       ...pointers?
> >     * From: Heather <address@hidden>
> >
> >(Could we convince a digest to strip the patches? Hmm...)
> 
> Would people be willing to fetch patches from an archive if _all_ MIME 
> attachments were stripped and archived as the mail goes through the MLM?
> 
> -Al
> 

Eek!  I'd prefer that not.  That I see patches sometimes is how I'm slowly
relearning coding practices.  I was only thinking it aloud for the purpose
of digest use.  (In fact I'm not certain lynx-dev is available in digest
form.)  

And I'm coming to agree with Klaus, this is the -dev list, if there were
going to be a twinning and one of them wouldn't have code... this one would
be the logical one to -keep- the code.

(I don't even know if the MLM lynx-dev runs on can do what I'm thinking of,
 so I'll explain, and you can all pot-shot at it.)

In more detail I was thinking:  if someone could subscribe to the abridged
(or adulterated, if you don't agree :>) form of the list.  That would 
recieve all the normal lynx-dev passed by a filter which would endeavor to
strip code.  In the usual way of archive request, its subscribers could have
the trimmings from given posts sent to them?  Or the unabridged post sent to
them instead?  Some sort of mechanism whereby if the filter-script is an
idiot, that people can get the real thing and figure it out for themselves.
(Of course if it is not so dumb, the retrieve-trimmings feature might be
very handy indeed.)

But this isn't very lynx anymore, it's list stuff.

* Heather