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

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> I am going on prior art here; specifically, Fcc.  I don't see the value
> in adding an Nmh- prefix to any Nmh-specific header.  I realize this is
> something that there is not universal agreement on.

It's a simple namespace issue.  These headers escape the nmh environment.  
Being generic, other software might attribute other meanings to them, and do 
unexpected things.  Putting everything behind "nmh-", and advertising we do so, 
mostly eliminates the risk.

This means, moving forward, we only generate nmh-* headers, while continuing to 
accept the old ones.

This is particularly important now that "forw -mime" is becoming the default; 
these headers *will* escape now.

--lyndon