Re: [nmh-workers] Change {encrypted} to %(encrypted) in mh-format

[Ken Hornstein]

>However I wonder at the rationale for including this info in the
>scan format at all.   We don't print 'M' if the message is MIME
>encoded, and we don't print 'F' if there's a face header, and nor
>do we print 'A' if there are attachments - what's so special about
>encrypyted that warrants this special treatment?

Well, here are my thoughts on that subject.

First, historical.  The original MH people thought it was a good idea.
That doesn't mean we have to continue that, but I was reluctant to just
yank something out without a replacement.

Second ... encrypted messages are a little bit different than all other
messages is that they are an encapsulating type, where you have to decode
it to get the "true" mime type, and that decoding may require some sort
of user interaction, so you may very well want handle them differently.
It's fair to point out that we don't know what a potential %(encrypted)
function escape should necessarily do just yet; I am just thinking ahead.

>Note that 'E' in the format is different to the alternate annotations
>that can occur in the same position (and trump the E if more than one
>applies) in that the others tell what I have done to the message
>(that I have replied, or forwarded it) - which is useful information
>to have in the scan listing.   Random extracts related to content type
>is not.

I'll let you and Valdis fight THAT one out :-)

--Ken