[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)
From: |
Paul Fox |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1) |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Oct 2016 15:41:03 -0400 |
david wrote:
> PF> and i prefer "attach" and "forward" to "nmh-attach" and "nmh-forward".
>
> To save keystrokes? That shouldn't be a consideration in scripts.
> And interactively, "a path" (at the What Now? prompt) is less
> keystrokes that "Attach: path".
not if i'm already in my editor, it's not. and if i wait until leaving
the editor, i'll likely forget the attachment. so i sometimes use an
editor macro to create the Attach: header, and sometimes i type it by
hand. i could easily imagine doing that with Forward: as well.
clearly this boils down to preference. i prefer not to confuse the MH
user interface (what appears in the text editor, and on the command
line) with unnecessary visual clutter.
> PF> as i understand it, the only worry with not using an Nmh- prefix is
> PF> with leaking headers. since none of these are supposed to ever get
> PF> out, conscientious scrubbing should get rid of them. (lyndon claimed
> PF> they'd get out, but didn't offer an example of how, so i'm still
> PF> unclear on that.)
>
> I put one in this message. (And also an Nmh-Attach: header, which will
> get scrubbed out, see below.)
great! so there's no problem. ;-) :-)
>
> KH> Personally, even if those headers DID leak out, I don't think it would
> KH> be the end of the world, or even a big deal at all.
>
> Yes, but why not try to do better: if one does leak out, allow anyone to
> track it down.
i'd think adding an "X-Mailer: nmh-1.6" header would help even more.
(i confess i'm a little surprised that we don't already emit such a
header. i see that exmh does.)
paul
=----------------------
paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 62.8 degrees)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Paul Fox, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1),
Paul Fox <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Paul Fox, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Valdis . Kletnieks, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Oliver Kiddle, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Paul Fox, 2016/10/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/16