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

[Paul Fox]

lyndon wrote:
 > 
 > > 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.

why?  how?  it seems to me that you have to work pretty hard to
get them into the wild -- mhbuild will eliminate them normally, won't
it?

paul
=----------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 49.5 degrees)