> >It's always been that way. I think that we should retain the > >original nmh capability, just change the default build configuration. > > "Meh". I actually think "it's always been that way" is kind of a lousy > reason to not have a capability (and I think you have it backwards: > preventing the user from doing something isn't a "capability").
By "capability", I mean this: the installer of nmh can prevent a mortal user from using masquerading. There certainly are plenty of ways for mortal users to sidestep this prevention, of course. But why should we change the behavior of nmh when we don't need to? It's easy to change the default nmh configuration (to something that many of us seem to use, anyway). David ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
