[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 14:15:54 -0400

>Because the sooner we create the prefix, the sooner future new headers
>can fall under it.  Ken says we discussed this over `Attach'.  Here we
>are for `Forward'.  Next year it will be another one?

My recollection is that it actually came up originally for
Envelope-From, actually.

So, here's the official list of headers that nmh uses for what would be
classified as "internal use", that is to say, send(1)/post(8) uses them to
change their behavior, but they do not actually get sent out on the wire.


(there is also Resent-Bcc, Resent-Dcc, and Resent-Fcc).  I'm not counting
the things like Resent/Forwarded/Replied, as while send(1) does create
those headers, it's not really using them to change anything that it does.
I'll take the blame for the last two, but the previous ones have been
around forever.

My feelings are that there is plenty of prior art for having special
headers that tell send/post what to do, I don't see the value of having
a special Nmh- prefix.  But like I said before, I recognize that not
everyone feels the same way.  If they happen to leak out in the wild,
they won't harm anything since they're not official headers.


reply via email to

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