Re: [Nmh-workers] forw

[Paul Vixie]

address@hidden wrote:
> I don't recall when attachments first came into nmh, if I ever knew. But I
> don't understand why the feature I talked about was not added to forw at that
> time. Maybe it was because, for some reason I don't understand it is
> difficult??

RFC 934 style attachments, as practiced by burst(1), were far easier to 
forward. if you just included the raw text (headers + newline + body) 
then all the attachments went-with.

MIME broke all that. a lot of UI's can't cope with attachment trees 
where one rfc822 includes another which has attachments. the way modern 
graphical MIME UI's work is by iterating down through the forwarded 
message's MIME tree and attaching each attachment to the top level of 
the forwarding message. this is quite destructive, and complicated, and 
expensive. but it's what forw(1) would have to do.

--
P Vixie