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

[David Levine]

Ken wrote:

> - Traceability - I mean, why is this an issue?  Who would really care?

I count four people who have responded that they do.  I might have miscounted,
but obviously some do care.

> - Polluting the namespace - I mean, also ... really, is this a thing we
>   should have to worry about?

Yes.

> If it happens, and it seems like it's easy enough to prevent.

It's easier to not pollute it in the first place, and use Nmh- going
forward.

> These are pretty abstract concepts to me; I'm trying to see how this
> really would impact anything.

But, you conceded:

> I mean, yeah, it's not something we should do

> Also, copying other art ... the few MUAs
> that do stuff similar to this (mutt is the prime example I could find)
> use headers for this purpose without any special prefix, and

And messages used to have a couple of handfuls of header lines.  Now
they're 3 to 4 (of my) screenfulls, and some have names like X-AOL-IP,
X-Pobox-Relay-ID, X-MS-Has-Attach,
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id,
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped,
x-forefront-antispam-report, X-GMAIL-LABELS, X-GMAIL-THRID, and
X-GMAIL-MSGID.  So I don't buy your point about prior art.  At all.

> and no one seems to care.

I care.  And others have indicated that they care.

David