[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh
From: |
Neil W Rickert |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:02:13 -0500 |
Jon Steinhart <address@hidden> wrote on Sep 16, 2004:
>Is there any sort of wish list for nmh development?
Here is my wish list.
nmh is rotten at the core. There is a lot of cruft, and probably
buffer overflows galore in the many library routines.
What is badly needed (IMHO) is to document the various procedures,
and carefully review the code in each of them. It will be easier to
add enhancements, when the core library is in better shape and is
adequately documented.
-NWR
- [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Jon Steinhart, 2004/09/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Ken Hornstein, 2004/09/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Harald Geyer, 2004/09/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh,
Neil W Rickert <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Chad Walstrom, 2004/09/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Bill Wohler, 2004/09/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh (mailutils), Jon Steinhart, 2004/09/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh (mailutils), Norman Shapiro, 2004/09/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh (mailutils), Ralph Corderoy, 2004/09/18
- [Nmh-workers] Mailutils status + wish for easier RPM packaging, Michael, 2004/09/18
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Nmh status - working on nmh, Chris Garrigues, 2004/09/21