[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

From: norm
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 06:32:51 -0700

Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> writes:
>Okay, hopefully we've beaten this whole thing into the ground, and after
>all that here's what I suggest we do for 1.7:
>1) forw be changed so -mime is the default.  So if you, for example, still
>want to send a RFC 934 digest, you'd have to use -nomime.
>2) Doing forw -mime will result in the following header being placed in
>the draft (just an example, you get the idea):
>Forward: +inbox 8 22 38
>Smart people will notice this looks a lot like the #forw mhbuild
>directive.  This is not a coincidence :-)
>3) mhbuild will process any "Forward" headers at send(1) time and put
>them as message/rfc822 parts at the end of the message.  mhbuild will
>still handle #forw directives in case someone wants to have exact control
>over their message content.
>4) After 1.7 comes out, Jon Steinhart will send a message to nmh-workers
>asking why forw doesn't work anymore :-) (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist).
>Thoughts?  I realize this is a significant behavior change, and while I
>do poke fun at Jon occasionally he does bring up the fair point that
>breaking things is unfriendly.  AFAICT nothing will break (everything will
>still work) but users will definitely notice a difference.

If I understand you, you are proposing to do, what you said yesterday, was
very difficult.

    Norman Shapiro

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]