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

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Paul,

> > > +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.
> 
> i vote for presenting the user with a user-friendly component name.
> if conflict is an issue, could we make the names of these "special"
> headers tuneable via a profile entry?

Isn't that just another level of code, documentation, and grokking by
the user when Nmh-Forward would just sit there, be spotted and
understood by the user, and typically left alone.  Either the message
numbers might be edited, or the whole line deleted.  I actually think
it's an advantage to see that this is a Nmh header and not one that may
have general purpose interpretation.

-- 
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy