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

[David Levine]

Ralph wrote:

> +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?

Absolutely.  The existing code allows either Nmh-Attach or Attach.
We should use only Nmh-Forward here.

David