Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!netcom!jfh
From: jfh@netcom.UUCP (Jack Hamilton)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Elm in RN
Message-ID: <8197@netcom.UUCP>
Date: 2 Mar 90 16:28:33 GMT
References: <8150@netcom.UUCP> <5064@itivax.iti.org>
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 249-0290 guest}
Lines: 24

In article <5064@itivax.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:
>jfh@netcom.UUCP (Jack Hamilton) writes:
>
>>I'd rather use Elm than the RN mailer.  Am I overlooking something?  If I'm
>>not, please consider this to be a suggestion.
>
>This is a feature, not a bug.  Elm is a user agent, not a transport
>agent.  As such, it insulates the user from all those crufty things
>like headers, etc.  Rn needs a more primitive ua (like /bin/mail)
>or to talk directly to the transport agent.  After all, if rn is
>generating all the headers/etc for you, why do you want elm?

I want elm to insulate me from from all those crufty things like headers.
I want to be able to use my elm aliases.  I want to be able to modify my
.signature before it goes out, perhaps.  I want to have only one mailer to
deal with, not two.  

Enough reasons?  In any case, I don't see how you can describe the LACK of
an option as a feature, even if it's not a bug.  "Feature" implies
something desirable.  
-- 
Jack Hamilton   
jfh@netcom.com (UUCP)  
netcom!jfh@apple.com (Internet, if you're lucky)