Re: [Nmh-workers] Renaming Nmh-Attachment to Attach

[Jon Steinhart]

Ken Hornstein writes:
> >I don't understand why making it configurable is such an issue; the code to
> >get things out of the profile is pretty straightforward.
> 
> Sigh.  It's just MORE CODE.  Also ... it would be nice to document
> "Attach" as the header, rather than "It's Attach, unless you add this
> flag".  Also, I was planning on changing the argv[0] vector for mhbuild
> when run automatically, so you could have different profile entries for
> that usage case ... I cannot just imagine any reason why this is a useful
> knob to have.  If someone can make that case, please do so, and "it might
> break something for someone, somewhere" isn't a good enough reason for me.
> 
> >BTW, what stands out to me as the problem in your points above is the ability
> >for users to manually run mhbuild.  A lot of the grumbling about the original
> >attach code was about it not being as configurable as mhbuild, and it seems
> >like changes are in the works to fix this.  So my take is to fix it good and
> >hide mhbuild in some dark corner.  Oh, and make sure that Norm knows where to
> >find it :)
> 
> One thing Ralph mentioned that he didn't like about attach was that he
> couldn't see what the MIME output was.  This will fix that.  I'm not saying
> mhbuild is the right long-term solution, but MIME composition is a bit
> of a tough problem ... and it will require some thought and a lot of code.
> 
> --Ken

Hey, as I said, you're doing the work and it's OK with me.  I'm just trying to
remember the thinking behind what I did originally in case any of it is still
relevant.

I would make the pompous claim that nobody would need to see the MIME output
if attachments just worked right.  So there!

Jon