Jon Steinhart wrote: > I feel the same way about having the attachment header containing full > mhbuild directives. Not sure what you get from that; if you want to > do mhbuild directives, do 'em in the body, it still works. The whole idea
The attach command is convenient though. Perhaps if the -attach option is not set in .mh_profile, attach could add an mhbuild directive to the body. Jon Steinhart wrote: > enough, what I'm suggesting is that > > forw 123 > > when the folder is my inbox make a message that begins with > > X-MH-Attachment: /home/Mail/jon/inbox/123 Using the same mechanism for mime forwards just reinforces the idea of using mhbuild directives in the header: this could be a #forw directive. I don't really like the idea of it attempting to guess if the file is a message because it would sometimes get it wrong. It wouldn't be hard to be backward compatible with X-MH-Attachment that contain just a filename. I also can't see that it is making the attachment stuff any harder to use. It is merely providing a little more control for someone that wants it. Oliver This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
