Re: [Nmh-workers] The attach feature

[Jon Steinhart]

Ken Hornstein writes:
> >Ah.  Well, if your argument is with the existence of whatnow as opposed
> >to the addition of attach to the existing whatnow we're in agreement.
> >As per other heated discussions on this list, there is a strong "don't
> >break things" mentality on this list (which got misplaced on the last
> >release) and the attachment code is the way it is in order to not break
> >things.
> 
> I'm not sure I'd used the word "misplaced" regarding the backwards
> compatibility issue ... that implies we don't know where it went :-)
> "Relaxed" might be better.
> 
> Yes, I know you're probably still stinging a bit about getting bit
> by draft messages requiring a From: header.  Believe me, that change
> wasn't made lightly and we had a serious debate about it (but with
> remarkably few dissenters).  It's a constant balancing act between
> "make sure old stuff worked" and "bring in new features".  Admittedly,
> that wasn't so much of a new features as cleaning up a bunch of
> junk which barely worked in the first place.  But as a side effect
> we got a bunch of new features out of it.
> 
> --Ken

I was just poking fun here, not complaining.  I was too busy to pay
attention to what was going on so I defer to those who did the work.
I will point out for the future that I had something similar happen
with another package recently (don't remember which now) and it output
a very clear message about what needed to be done.

Jon