[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: |
Sat, 15 Oct 2016 14:58:57 +0100 |
Hi Ken
> I admit I am not clear where Ralph stands on this particular issue;
> perhaps the Marmite shortage is affecting things :-)
Marmite's basic ingredient is yeast sludge, a waste product from brewing
beer. Give me the beer. It's solely produced in Burton, which used to
have a large beer-brewing industry. "Come friendly bombs and fall on
Burton!" It's on my target list just above Twiglets.
> Ralph's not so crazy on letting those headers get out, but he never
> said that he wanted or didn't want a Nmh- prefix.
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2016-10/msg00096.html
I think `Nmh-' prefix is better on these nmh-directive headers if
everything else stays working as today.
I wandered off onto other options to try and trigger ideas that might be
acceptable to both camps. And widen the problem a bit to consider
something that helps, or at least doesn't hinder, other problems.
Ideally,
Allow the user to write any legal header and have it hit the wire.
Ensure nmh-directive headers don't leak.
Ensure nmh-directive headers don't clash with external headers.
Catch typos in header names so they don't hit the wire.
Starting to use Nmh- from now on, having Nmh-* stripped by post(8), does
some of that. Another alternative would be to consider all headers to
be nmh's fare; the user cannot put `Foo: bar' in a draft. This would
mean we can continue to dribble over the namespace over time since it's
ours, all ours. We can catch corruptions, `Subjct'. And post can
ensure only known headers reach the wire, after correct encoding has
been applied.
The `escape' so users can still add their own headers could be another
nmh-directive header, e.g. «Wire: Foo: Bar». I don't think any valid
header line from a user is an invalid header value, so it can just have
a new header key prefixed? (I'd probably go for `X' for external to
save the clutter.)
> Also ... if we are having post(8) scrub out headers with an Nmh-
> prefix, we could also have it scrub out any header, like Attach:,
No, because users may have a reason to add headers unknown to nmh.
> we could have it put in a X-Mailer or User-Agent header. It looks
> like that was never standardized for Email, but it comes from HTTP and
> there was an Internet-Draft here to use it for Email:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-email-user-agent-00
"This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014." Also,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=melnikov&sort=&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on&by=group&group=
doesn't list it or an RFC conversion.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Paul Fox, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Robert Elz, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Steffen Nurpmeso, 2016/10/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1),
Ralph Corderoy <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Andy Bradford, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Robert Elz, 2016/10/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Robert Elz, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Paul Fox, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Valdis . Kletnieks, 2016/10/11