[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Paul Fox
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:43:52 -0400

ken wrote:
 > >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.

that's fine.  i was kind of typing while thinking.  and i hadn't fully
appreciated the "inline" distinction.

 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 50.9 degrees)

reply via email to

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