[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 16:50:03 -0400

>The only responsible choice is to include the prefix.  Otherwise, we
>run the risk of messages leaking out with internal pseudoeheader names.
>Like this message!

Man, how did you get that out there?  Well, I guess if you ran mhbuild
on it first and then added it, that could happen.

>Note that Nmh-Attach and Attach are synonomous.  And all others, except
>Envelope-From:, used by nmh originated with MH.

I understand that ... it's just that the original designers of MH didn't
think it was a problem.  Okay, fine, they probably didn't envision
things like Attach or Forward, but they didn't envision MIME either.

So, that's one of those things where there is prior art, but I will
admit it's not super compelling.

>> I don't see the value of having a special Nmh- prefix.
>Traceability is valuable.

Yeah, okay, I can get that ... it's just ... well, I kind of want
users to be able to add those headers.  So having awkward names makes
that harder.  I guess it depends on what you think is important.

>The won't harm anything, but how will Ralph know who to ask to fix it?

Ha!  Well, okay, can't really argue with that one. :-)

>Does anyone manually insert "Attach:" into their draft messages?

I do, FWIW.  It may be that I'm the only one.

I admit that maybe I'm a little frustrated, as I thought this was
thoroughly litigated in these threads:


That doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to revisit those decisions; I just
kind of felt this had been settled already.


reply via email to

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