[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1) |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:50:03 -0400 |
>The only responsible choice is to include the prefix. Otherwise, we
>run the risk of messages leaking out with internal pseudoeheader names.
>Like this message!
Man, how did you get that out there? Well, I guess if you ran mhbuild
on it first and then added it, that could happen.
>Note that Nmh-Attach and Attach are synonomous. And all others, except
>Envelope-From:, used by nmh originated with MH.
I understand that ... it's just that the original designers of MH didn't
think it was a problem. Okay, fine, they probably didn't envision
things like Attach or Forward, but they didn't envision MIME either.
So, that's one of those things where there is prior art, but I will
admit it's not super compelling.
>> I don't see the value of having a special Nmh- prefix.
>
>Traceability is valuable.
Yeah, okay, I can get that ... it's just ... well, I kind of want
users to be able to add those headers. So having awkward names makes
that harder. I guess it depends on what you think is important.
>The won't harm anything, but how will Ralph know who to ask to fix it?
Ha! Well, okay, can't really argue with that one. :-)
>Does anyone manually insert "Attach:" into their draft messages?
I do, FWIW. It may be that I'm the only one.
I admit that maybe I'm a little frustrated, as I thought this was
thoroughly litigated in these threads:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2012-03/msg00015.html
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2014-01/msg00009.html
That doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to revisit those decisions; I just
kind of felt this had been settled already.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Andy Bradford, 2016/10/14
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Robert Elz, 2016/10/15
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Robert Elz, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1),
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Paul Fox, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Valdis . Kletnieks, 2016/10/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Valdis . Kletnieks, 2016/10/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/11
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), bergman, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Paul Fox, 2016/10/10