Dan Harkless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Chris Garrigues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So clearly it provides for overriding the name, but not for simply adding
>> an extension. I think adding this functionality to nmh would be useful.
>> I would then also be able to repackage my spam-proof addresses in a way
>> that I wouldn't be embarrassed to share with others.
>Okay. Well, I'll wait to hear from Neil Rickert about how sacred /
>widely-used the $USERPLUS variable is, and whether he would mind having to
>put his own '+' in a $USER_EXTENSION variable.
Sorry for slow replying.
I am copying John Beck, who has experimented with this for exmh.
The uses that I know of for this should be easily modifiable to use
the support for "From:" that is already in 1.0.3. Thus I don't have
any particularly strong feelings about it. I want to know what John
thinks, however.
When I started using these changes for nmh, I provided equivalent
changes for classic MH. But with the security problems, MH users
should switch to nmh anyway, so I don't see this as a serious
problem.
Unlike the 1.0.3 changes, I did deliberately use different bits of
mmailid, so that an adminstrator could selectively enable one option
or the other (or both). I would like to suggest that this still be
considered. On systems with a 'chfn' command, it may be a mistake
to always interpret an '@' in the gecos field as being intended
for 'nmh' addresses.
-NWR
