[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Ralph Corderoy
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 23:16:36 +0100


I think there's a difference between nmh headers the user might
typically add manually in a draft, e.g. Bcc, and those that are more the
mechanics of something they drive another way, e.g. Attach and the
whatnow prompt.  (Will the new Forward grow a `forward' whatnow(1)
command in time BTW?)

There seems to be two ideals.  Not cooking up headers that may clash.
Not letting our headers, however they're formed, leak.  I was wondering
about an illegal header prefix so that whatever's used we can ensure it
doesn't leak.  It could also be more terse for those that don't want to
type `Nmh-'.

    from: tom
    to: dick
    .bcc: harry
    .forward: +inbox 42 314 1718

It would have to be post(8) that's checking for `dot' headers since it
isn't send(1) that processes all of them;  some remain for post,
assuming that's the postproc.  `Dot files' are familiar from ls(1)
treating them as `hidden'.

But!  There are no illegal header field characters;  RFC 2822 says
anything from 33 to 126, except a colon, is OK.  So we'd still be
trampling, but having a shorter prefix to indicate it's internal, never
to leak.  (Though I agree "never" is doubtful, and there are alternate
postprocs to mess up.)

BTW, RFC 2822 defines Bcc, including that it can remain in the sent
email with no values to indicate to the non-blind recipients that blinds
were sent.

So given the only illegal header is `:Forward: +inbox 42', and David's
traceability argument of having the world knock on our door, I think I'm
still in favour of an `Nmh-' prefix.

Cheers, Ralph.

reply via email to

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