Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?

[Oliver Kiddle]

Jon Steinhart wrote:

> I feel the same way about having the attachment header containing full
> mhbuild directives.  Not sure what you get from that; if you want to
> do mhbuild directives, do 'em in the body, it still works.  The whole idea

The attach command is convenient though. Perhaps if the -attach option
is not set in .mh_profile, attach could add an mhbuild directive to the
body.

Jon Steinhart wrote:

> enough, what I'm suggesting is that
>       
>       forw 123
> 
> when the folder is my inbox make a message that begins with
> 
>       X-MH-Attachment: /home/Mail/jon/inbox/123

Using the same mechanism for mime forwards just reinforces the idea of
using mhbuild directives in the header: this could be a #forw directive.
I don't really like the idea of it attempting to guess if the file is a
message because it would sometimes get it wrong.

It wouldn't be hard to be backward compatible with X-MH-Attachment that
contain just a filename. I also can't see that it is making the
attachment stuff any harder to use. It is merely providing a little more
control for someone that wants it.

Oliver


This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended 
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential 
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, 
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended 
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all 
copies and inform the sender. Thank you.