Re: Options parseing and append vs. overwrite

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Tom von Alten wrote:

> It seems to me that "append" vs. "overwrite" and "one article" (whether
> stdin or an mbox file) and "multiple articles" are connected, and they
> should not be.

I agree fully.

> I might want to append an archive with two messages, from an mbox file.

Oh yes.

> *Maybe* it's reasonable to connect "from stdin" to "only one message."

I don't think so. I think stdin is just another way to read from, it shouldn't imply how many mails there are.

> But "one => append && [more than one] => overwrite" ('=>' in the logical
> sense of "implies") does not seem appropriate.

I haven't really been aware of this sillyness before.

I'd like to keep all these options apart, independent from each other and with the following functionality: (please correct me, fill in details or just complain if I'm making a fool out of myself now)

• Stdin (-i) Tells hypermail to read from stdin instead of a mailbox.
• Update (-u) Tells hypermail to update an existing archive with all the mails passed as input.
• Single Message (I suggest: -1) This tells there is exactly and only one mail in the input. The only reason I could come up with to specify this is to prevent hypermail from treating "From ..." - lines as mail separators.
• Overwrite (-x) (why doesn't this use -o?) Make hypermail rewrite all html files, even the old ones.

-- 
   Daniel Stenberg    http://www.fts.frontec.se/~dast     0708-317742
   ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol