[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1) |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 11:35:03 -0400 |
Paul wrote:
> david wrote:
> they're no more "internal" than "Fcc". so pleasing the eye, is,
> actually, not unimportant.
If you want to talk about typing them in, I could understand. Pleasing
the eye, I just don't get it. Nmh-Attach doesn't look that much different
to me than Attach. (And it has the benefit to me of knowing that it will
get scrubbed by post, even if I mistype some pseudoheader as
Nmh-<not suitable for work word>. And I appreciate seeing pseudoheaders
differentiated from headers that will hit the wire.)
> the header/pseudoheader namespace has been polluted since just about
> when MH was written.
That doesn't mean we don't try to do better.
> > If a new header called Attach: or Forward: or Anything Else: is
> > standardized, but has different semantics than an nmh pseudoheader with
> > the same name, what would nmh then do?
>
> i guess we'd change the name.
Let's avoid that. This is an nmh policy issue. It's not the first time
we've faced it, and I expect won't be the last.
> we can even document now, that if an
> Attach or Forward or Dcc or Fcc header is ever standardized by the
> IETF, that we'll probably need to change nmh's user interface at that
> time. in fact, we should add that disclaimer anyway, since we already
> face that potential problem with long-existing headers.
You provided the list before. We have a choice now of adding:
Forward
whatever else we come up with in the future, every time we do
or
Nmh-*
Let's not take on potential UI changes and a maintenance task that we can
avoid.
David
- 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), 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 <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 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
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), David Levine, 2016/10/16
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/16
- 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), Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/14