[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)
From: |
Paul Fox |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1) |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Oct 2016 12:43:52 -0400 |
ken wrote:
> >thinking about this further, i think i might rather teach Attach about
> >mh message numbers and sequences than add a new Forward header.
> >Attach is already examining its file arguments to decide how to a
> >attach any given file -- teaching it recognize message specifiers
> >isn't a big stretch. this would clearly lead to these two
> >invocations having different results:
>
> Two problems I see:
>
> "Attach" means, "attach this file with a disposition of 'attachment'".
> It takes one argument: filename. The #forw directive (which I am
> planning on emulating) takes a folder name and message numbers; it does
> not create a disposition, so it defaults to "inline". This means different
> semantics for Attach depending on the file type; I think that's bad.
>
> It's more code.
that's fine. i was kind of typing while thinking. and i hadn't fully
appreciated the "inline" distinction.
paul
=----------------------
paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 50.9 degrees)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Valdis . Kletnieks, 2016/10/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Valdis . Kletnieks, 2016/10/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), bergman, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1),
Paul Fox <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/10
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/10
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), norm, 2016/10/10
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/10