[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: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 13:02:25 -0400

>was there a consensus on this issue?  (i'm assuming that there _was_
>a consensus on ken's proposal for adding a Forward: header similar to
>the current Attach:.)

There has not been.

Like I said before, I thought we had made this decision already.  But
fine, if we want to revisit it then I am okay with that.

I guess this illustrates one problem with open-source projects; who makes
the decisions when people disagree?  It's not that people who want
an Nmh- prefix are being unreasonable; I mean, I understand all of their
arguments; I just think my arguments are more compelling.

>as i understand it, the only worry with not using an Nmh- prefix is
>with leaking headers.  since none of these are supposed to ever get
>out, conscientious scrubbing should get rid of them.  (lyndon claimed
>they'd get out, but didn't offer an example of how, so i'm still
>unclear on that.)

Personally, even if those headers DID leak out, I don't think it would
be the end of the world, or even a big deal at all.


reply via email to

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