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

[David Levine]

Paul wrote:

> david wrote:

> they're no more "internal" than "Fcc".  so pleasing the eye, is,
> actually, not unimportant.

If you want to talk about typing them in, I could understand.  Pleasing
the eye, I just don't get it.  Nmh-Attach doesn't look that much different
to me than Attach.  (And it has the benefit to me of knowing that it will
get scrubbed by post, even if I mistype some pseudoheader as
Nmh-<not suitable for work word>.  And I appreciate seeing pseudoheaders
differentiated from headers that will hit the wire.)

> the header/pseudoheader namespace has been polluted since just about
> when MH was written.

That doesn't mean we don't try to do better.

>  > If a new header called Attach: or Forward: or Anything Else: is
>  > standardized, but has different semantics than an nmh pseudoheader with
>  > the same name, what would nmh then do?
>
> i guess we'd change the name.

Let's avoid that.  This is an nmh policy issue.  It's not the first time
we've faced it, and I expect won't be the last.

> we can even document now, that if an
> Attach or Forward or Dcc or Fcc header is ever standardized by the
> IETF, that we'll probably need to change nmh's user interface at that
> time.  in fact, we should add that disclaimer anyway, since we already
> face that potential problem with long-existing headers.

You provided the list before.  We have a choice now of adding:
    Forward
    whatever else we come up with in the future, every time we do

or
    Nmh-*

Let's not take on potential UI changes and a maintenance task that we can
avoid.

David