1.1 --- a/future.roff	Mon Jul 09 17:40:08 2012 +0200
     1.2 +++ /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     1.3 @@ -1,130 +0,0 @@
     1.4 -.H0 "Summary
     1.5 -.P
     1.6 -This document describes and explains my work on mmh.
     1.7 -I have streamlined the project by removing programs, facilities
     1.8 -and options that diverted from the main task of mmh, being a MUA.
     1.9 -I have modernized the code base removing obsolete functions and
    1.10 -activating modern features per default.
    1.11 -Further more, I improved the style by refactoring clumpsy code
    1.12 -and by defining or exploiting clear concepts.
    1.13 -All my work was motivated by Antoine de Saint Exupery's well-known
    1.14 -statement:
    1.15 -.[
    1.16 -antoine de saint exupery: Wind, Sand and Stars (1939)
    1.17 -.]
    1.18 -.QS
    1.19 -It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing
    1.20 -more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove.
    1.21 -.QE
    1.22 -.P
    1.23 -In contrast to the common expectations, I have hardly added new features.
    1.24 -I regard my improvements in selecting the relevant set of existing
    1.25 -features and exploiting the concepts more thoroughly.
    1.26 -I believe, the result is a system simpler and clearer for both
    1.27 -developing and using, without lacking important functionality.
    1.28 -
    1.29 -
    1.30 -.U2 "Work Left to Do
    1.31 -.P
    1.32 -The work done during the project is not finished.
    1.33 -Several tasks are left to do, mainly the MIME integration.
    1.34 -.P
    1.35 -MIME handling is the most complex part of mmh and it requires
    1.36 -general rework.
    1.37 -The changes already done to it build upon the existing structure.
    1.38 -Yet, MIME support is not truly integrated.
    1.39 -For instance, accessing messages and accessing MIME parts of messages
    1.40 -have inherently different concepts, although a single concept should
    1.41 -cover both.
    1.42 -The sequence notation should provide a way to address MIME parts directly.
    1.43 -Furthermore, the sequence notation should be made more powerful in general.
    1.44 -For instance, it is currently not possible to access the second last
    1.45 -message in a given sequence.
    1.46 -Displaying messages with
    1.47 -.Pn show
    1.48 -requires further rework.
    1.49 -Encrypted messages, for example, should be decoded automatically
    1.50 -and digital signatures should be verified on-the-fly.
    1.51 -The whole task should be aligned with the common behavior of other
    1.52 -mail clients.
    1.53 -MH's unique features should not be lost, but the default should become
    1.54 -less surprising.
    1.55 -Transfer-decoding of the quoted text in replys and encoding of non-ASCII
    1.56 -characters in message header fields like
    1.57 -.Hd Subject
    1.58 -remain unsolved.
    1.59 -.P
    1.60 -Besides MIME-related tasks, some tools were not worked on yet.
    1.61 -Among them are
    1.62 -.Pn dist ,
    1.63 -.Pn rcvdist ,
    1.64 -.Pn mark ,
    1.65 -.Pn pick ,
    1.66 -and
    1.67 -.Pn sortm .
    1.68 -Concerning
    1.69 -.Pn sortm ,
    1.70 -a threaded message view is completely missing to mmh, yet.
    1.71 -.Pn pick
    1.72 -could profit from message indexing.
    1.73 -No research was performed in this field.
    1.74 -.P
    1.75 -The features most often asked for are Maildir and IMAP support.
    1.76 -Yet, both of them collide with MH in the same fundamental way as
    1.77 -different filesystem approaches would collide with Unix.
    1.78 -Nevertheless, a storage back-end abstraction layer could provide
    1.79 -a mapping from such back-ends to the MH storage format.
    1.80 -Research in this area is highly appreciated.
    1.81 -
    1.82 -
    1.83 -.U2 "Relationship to nmh
    1.84 -.P
    1.85 -The mmh project started as an experimental version of nmh because the
    1.86 -nmh community did not welcome my changes in the mainline version.
    1.87 -To not slow my work down by the need to convince the community in
    1.88 -discussions for each step I liked to take,
    1.89 -I started to create an experimental version to convicce by demonstration
    1.90 -of the result.
    1.91 -My worked on mmh was independent of the nmh community.
    1.92 -This enabled me to follow my vision straightly and thus produce
    1.93 -a result of greater pureness.
    1.94 -.P
    1.95 -Mmh shall be considered an inspiration for the future development of nmh.
    1.96 -It shall show identify weak part of nmh and suggest possible
    1.97 -improvements by change.
    1.98 -It shall present a lean appearance that is simpler to understand
    1.99 -and work with for developers and users.
   1.100 -By all means shall my work on mmh improve nmh in some way.
   1.101 -Improving nmh directly in the way I wanted was impossible for me
   1.102 -due to personal and community-related circumstances.
   1.103 -The mmh project is my way to offer my gifts though.
   1.104 -.P
   1.105 -During my work on mmh, the community of nmh suddenly became very active.
   1.106 -They have worked on nmh in parallel to my work on mmh.
   1.107 -There was no collaberation in our work, except that I have pulled some
   1.108 -changes from nmh to mmh.
   1.109 -Our work was motivated partly by similar and partly by different aims.
   1.110 -Although some changes are common among both projects,
   1.111 -fundamental differences exist.
   1.112 -My experimental version thus more and more felt like being a fork.
   1.113 -I am undecided how I like to have it.
   1.114 -Yet, I am strongly convinced that most of the decisions taken in mmh
   1.115 -were good to achieve my goals and I like to push the project even
   1.116 -farther in this direction.
   1.117 -
   1.118 -
   1.119 -.U2 "Weaknesses of My Work
   1.120 -.P
   1.121 -not targeting on the right problems (maildir, imap)
   1.122 -
   1.123 -.P
   1.124 -refactoring requires testing, automated testing
   1.125 -
   1.126 -.P
   1.127 -communication with nmh.
   1.128 -worked behind closed doors, but no:
   1.129 -talks I've given
   1.130 -
   1.131 -.P
   1.132 -focus on myself.
   1.133 -But: If good for me then also good for others.

     2.1 --- a/makefile	Mon Jul 09 17:40:08 2012 +0200
     2.2 +++ b/makefile	Mon Jul 09 17:41:05 2012 +0200
     2.3 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
     2.4  NAME = thesis
     2.5  CHAPS = style front.roff dedication.roff abstract.roff toc.roff \
     2.6 -	preface.roff intro.roff discussion.roff future.roff refs.roff \
     2.7 +	preface.roff intro.roff discussion.roff summary.roff refs.roff \
     2.8  	official.roff colophon.roff
     2.9  PDFFLAGS = -sPAPERSIZE=a4 -dPDFSETTINGS=/prepress
    2.10  REFER = refer -n -p bib -p rfcs -e -P -sLAD -l,2 -k

     3.1 --- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
     3.2 +++ b/summary.roff	Mon Jul 09 17:41:05 2012 +0200
     3.3 @@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
     3.4 +.H0 "Summary
     3.5 +.P
     3.6 +This document describes and explains my work on mmh.
     3.7 +I have streamlined the project by removing programs, facilities
     3.8 +and options that diverted from the main task of mmh, being a MUA.
     3.9 +I have modernized the code base removing obsolete functions and
    3.10 +activating modern features per default.
    3.11 +Further more, I improved the style by refactoring clumpsy code
    3.12 +and by defining or exploiting clear concepts.
    3.13 +All my work was motivated by Antoine de Saint Exupery's well-known
    3.14 +statement:
    3.15 +.[
    3.16 +antoine de saint exupery: Wind, Sand and Stars (1939)
    3.17 +.]
    3.18 +.QS
    3.19 +It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing
    3.20 +more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove.
    3.21 +.QE
    3.22 +.P
    3.23 +In contrast to the common expectations, I have hardly added new features.
    3.24 +I regard my improvements in selecting the relevant set of existing
    3.25 +features and exploiting the concepts more thoroughly.
    3.26 +I believe, the result is a system simpler and clearer for both
    3.27 +developing and using, without lacking important functionality.
    3.28 +
    3.29 +
    3.30 +.U2 "Work Left to Do
    3.31 +.P
    3.32 +The work done during the project is not finished.
    3.33 +Several tasks are left to do, mainly the MIME integration.
    3.34 +.P
    3.35 +MIME handling is the most complex part of mmh and it requires
    3.36 +general rework.
    3.37 +The changes already done to it build upon the existing structure.
    3.38 +Yet, MIME support is not truly integrated.
    3.39 +For instance, accessing messages and accessing MIME parts of messages
    3.40 +have inherently different concepts, although a single concept should
    3.41 +cover both.
    3.42 +The sequence notation should provide a way to address MIME parts directly.
    3.43 +Furthermore, the sequence notation should be made more powerful in general.
    3.44 +For instance, it is currently not possible to access the second last
    3.45 +message in a given sequence.
    3.46 +Displaying messages with
    3.47 +.Pn show
    3.48 +requires further rework.
    3.49 +Encrypted messages, for example, should be decoded automatically
    3.50 +and digital signatures should be verified on-the-fly.
    3.51 +The whole task should be aligned with the common behavior of other
    3.52 +mail clients.
    3.53 +MH's unique features should not be lost, but the default should become
    3.54 +less surprising.
    3.55 +Transfer-decoding of the quoted text in replys and encoding of non-ASCII
    3.56 +characters in message header fields like
    3.57 +.Hd Subject
    3.58 +remain unsolved.
    3.59 +.P
    3.60 +Besides MIME-related tasks, some tools were not worked on yet.
    3.61 +Among them are
    3.62 +.Pn dist ,
    3.63 +.Pn rcvdist ,
    3.64 +.Pn mark ,
    3.65 +.Pn pick ,
    3.66 +and
    3.67 +.Pn sortm .
    3.68 +Concerning
    3.69 +.Pn sortm ,
    3.70 +a threaded message view is completely missing to mmh, yet.
    3.71 +.Pn pick
    3.72 +could profit from message indexing.
    3.73 +No research was performed in this field.
    3.74 +.P
    3.75 +The features most often asked for are Maildir and IMAP support.
    3.76 +Yet, both of them collide with MH in the same fundamental way as
    3.77 +different filesystem approaches would collide with Unix.
    3.78 +Nevertheless, a storage back-end abstraction layer could provide
    3.79 +a mapping from such back-ends to the MH storage format.
    3.80 +Research in this area is highly appreciated.
    3.81 +
    3.82 +
    3.83 +.U2 "Relationship to nmh
    3.84 +.P
    3.85 +The mmh project started as an experimental version of nmh because the
    3.86 +nmh community did not welcome my changes in the mainline version.
    3.87 +To not slow my work down by the need to convince the community in
    3.88 +discussions for each step I liked to take,
    3.89 +I started to create an experimental version to convicce by demonstration
    3.90 +of the result.
    3.91 +My worked on mmh was independent of the nmh community.
    3.92 +This enabled me to follow my vision straightly and thus produce
    3.93 +a result of greater pureness.
    3.94 +.P
    3.95 +Mmh shall be considered an inspiration for the future development of nmh.
    3.96 +It shall show identify weak part of nmh and suggest possible
    3.97 +improvements by change.
    3.98 +It shall present a lean appearance that is simpler to understand
    3.99 +and work with for developers and users.
   3.100 +By all means shall my work on mmh improve nmh in some way.
   3.101 +Improving nmh directly in the way I wanted was impossible for me
   3.102 +due to personal and community-related circumstances.
   3.103 +The mmh project is my way to offer my gifts though.
   3.104 +.P
   3.105 +During my work on mmh, the community of nmh suddenly became very active.
   3.106 +They have worked on nmh in parallel to my work on mmh.
   3.107 +There was no collaberation in our work, except that I have pulled some
   3.108 +changes from nmh to mmh.
   3.109 +Our work was motivated partly by similar and partly by different aims.
   3.110 +Although some changes are common among both projects,
   3.111 +fundamental differences exist.
   3.112 +My experimental version thus more and more felt like being a fork.
   3.113 +I am undecided how I like to have it.
   3.114 +Yet, I am strongly convinced that most of the decisions taken in mmh
   3.115 +were good to achieve my goals and I like to push the project even
   3.116 +farther in this direction.
   3.117 +
   3.118 +
   3.119 +.U2 "Weaknesses of My Work
   3.120 +.P
   3.121 +not targeting on the right problems (maildir, imap)
   3.122 +
   3.123 +.P
   3.124 +refactoring requires testing, automated testing
   3.125 +
   3.126 +.P
   3.127 +communication with nmh.
   3.128 +worked behind closed doors, but no:
   3.129 +talks I've given
   3.130 +
   3.131 +.P
   3.132 +focus on myself.
   3.133 +But: If good for me then also good for others.