Re: lynx-dev Re: external mail programs

[Klaus Weide]

On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Al Gilman wrote:
> Henry Nelson opined:
> 
> >In short I'm simply saying we've got a product that is superior exactly
> >the way it is.  Adding code to make mailto: configurable sorta like
> >telnet:// or ftp:// does not make Lynx better, IMHO.  Thus, I ask why?
> 
> Then we have an honest difference of opinion.  The other way would be
> cleaner, IMHO, not that it makes a big difference.

Indeed a disagreement of little consequence, as long as no-one dives
into the mess that the various mail-sending functions have become and
does something about it.  They need cleanup more badly than adding yet
more ifdef-branches anyway.  Recently discussed (briefly) between
Leonid and Tom.

Eduardo's patch under <http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/#lynx>
that "allows you to use pine for composing messages" is taking the easy
way out.  Its more than 1000 lines nearly all delete lines of the Lynx
code and only add the few new ones for calling pine theat he is
interested in.  That's not exactly a solution that can be adopted as-is.

(I didn't test his patch.  But it seems to only apply to one of the
several ways in which mail can be generated by lynx, and that the
possibility to quote the original article/page is lost, as well as
other goodies like creating in-reply-to headers.)

  Klaus