Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ really non-ASCII message bodies ]

[Peter Maydell]

Jon Steinhart wrote:
>Let me try to summarize here because there seems to be lots of energy here
>for commentary but little for things that move us forward:
>
> o  Many people still exclusively use nmh, some have drifted away.  'Nuf said
>    on this topic.
>
> o  There is a general concensus that backward compatibility is important and
>    that changes shouldn't break things unless there is a compelling reason.
>
> o  The particular thing that markus and Ralph want to address is how illegal
>    body content is handled.  Fixing this would be convenient.

Yes, I want this fixed too, and I have an opinion on how it should be fixed.

> o  markus is willing to write code.  Cool!
>
> o  Nobody objects to markus addressing this issue.  The objections are that
>    his implementation breaks things, and handling illegal body content is
>    not a compelling enough reason for breaking things.
>
> o  At least one suggestion (mine) has been floated on a way to implement this
>    in a way that does not break things.

Two suggestions -- mine as well. I think it's mostly complementary to
yours rather than at cross purposes, some of the aspects it's fixing
are different.

-- PMM