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

[Paul Fox]

david wrote:
 > Paul F. wrote:
 > 
 > > lyndon wrote:
 > >  > 
 > >  > This means, moving forward, we only generate nmh-* headers, while
 > >  > continuing to accept the old ones.
 > 
 > Yup.
 > 
 > >  > 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?
 > 
 > Note that post scrubs Bcc, Dcc, etc.  But not Nmh-Attach or Attach.
 > 
 > Also, nmh (whatnow) uses Nmh-Attach internally, not Attach.

was there a consensus on this issue?  (i'm assuming that there _was_
a consensus on ken's proposal for adding a Forward: header similar to
the current Attach:.)

in defense of not using a prefix:  these are all user visible headers,
intended to be viewed and manipulated daily.  i'm certainly happier
typing "bcc" and "fcc" than "nmh-bcc" and "nmh-fcc", and i prefer
"attach" and "forward" to "nmh-attach" and "nmh-forward".  using a
dot, as in ".attach" would i suppose be a marginal improvement, but
still a wart.

as i understand it, the only worry with not using an Nmh- prefix is
with leaking headers.  since none of these are supposed to ever get
out, conscientious scrubbing should get rid of them.  (lyndon claimed
they'd get out, but didn't offer an example of how, so i'm still
unclear on that.)

paul
=----------------------
paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 63.0 degrees)