Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!midway!clout!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Hey Syd, here's a couple of ideas!
Message-ID: <1991Jun24.223017.10123@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 24 Jun 91 22:30:17 GMT
References: <1991Jun21.130158.19374@DSI.COM> <1991Jun24.145828.3137@chinet.chi.il.us> <1991Jun24.175945.392@DSI.COM>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 25

In article <1991Jun24.175945.392@DSI.COM> syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) writes:

>>How about an rn-like pipe-to-process for saving/detaching?
>>The low-level support is already there for pipe-to-process anyway,
>>but it would be nice to have a dedicated command for it.

>There is already a dedicated command for it.  Its called | and it
>pipes the message, headers and all to any process you'd like.

First, it won't work as-is because ELM needs modifications to allow
imbedded nulls, and to ignore lines starting with From within the
bounds of a Content-Length: header.  That aside, it's not very
ELM-like to require the user to know anything about other processes,
at least after the initial options are set up.  You wouldn't suggest
that everyone start using |lp -Dwhatever to print instead of the dedicated
"p" command, would you?

This would be a good argument for putting macros in ELM, since
"bind-key-to" would provide equal or greater functionality compared
to coding in a dedicated command and action.  A variation of the
"|" command that processed tagged messages with a separate invocation
of the specified program per message would be nice too.

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us