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

[Ken Hornstein]

>> Thoughts?  I realize this is a significant behavior change
>
>+1.  The `Forward' header is grabbing another one for nmh's use, in
>addition to the existing `Attach'.  Should we be using `Nmh-Forward' if
>the user isn't likely to have the hassle of typing them most of the
>time?

Sigh.  I think when we hashed this out last time, the (rough) consensus
was that not puttting in a "Nmh-" prefix was fine.  Attach had prior
art (I think mutt used it), and Forward seems to be similarly named.

--Ken