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

[David Levine]

Paul F wrote:

> not if i'm already in my editor, it's not.  and if i wait until leaving
> the editor, i'll likely forget the attachment.  so i sometimes use an
> editor macro to create the Attach: header, and sometimes i type it by
> hand.

Fair enough.  Though the editor macro could just as easily include the
Nmh- prefix.

> i could easily imagine doing that with Forward: as well.

And an editor macro could just as easily use a #forw directive.

>  > PF> as i understand it, the only worry with not using an Nmh- prefix is
>  > PF> with leaking headers.  since none of these are supposed to ever get
>  > PF> out, conscientious scrubbing should get rid of them.  (lyndon claimed
>  > PF> they'd get out, but didn't offer an example of how, so i'm still
>  > PF> unclear on that.)
>  > 
>  > I put one in this message.  (And also an Nmh-Attach: header, which will
>  > get scrubbed out, see below.)
>
> great!  so there's no problem.  ;-) :-)

In case my point was missed:  the Attach: header was not scrubbed out.

> i'd think adding an "X-Mailer: nmh-1.6" header would help even more. 
> (i confess i'm a little surprised that we don't already emit such a
> header.  i see that exmh does.)

"X-" headers are deprecated by RFC 6648.  We could add, say, a Mailer
header.

David