[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:32:33 -0400

>thinking about this further, i think i might rather teach Attach about
>mh message numbers and sequences than add a new Forward header. 
>Attach is already examining its file arguments to decide how to a
>attach any given file -- teaching it recognize message specifiers
>isn't a big stretch.  this would clearly lead to these two
>invocations having different results:

Two problems I see:

"Attach" means, "attach this file with a disposition of 'attachment'".
It takes one argument: filename.  The #forw directive (which I am
planning on emulating) takes a folder name and message numbers; it does
not create a disposition, so it defaults to "inline".  This means different
semantics for Attach depending on the file type; I think that's bad.

It's more code.


reply via email to

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