Jon Steinhart wrote: >Let me try to summarize here because there seems to be lots of energy here >for commentary but little for things that move us forward: > > o Many people still exclusively use nmh, some have drifted away. 'Nuf said > on this topic. > > o There is a general concensus that backward compatibility is important and > that changes shouldn't break things unless there is a compelling reason. > > o The particular thing that markus and Ralph want to address is how illegal > body content is handled. Fixing this would be convenient.
Yes, I want this fixed too, and I have an opinion on how it should be fixed. > o markus is willing to write code. Cool! > > o Nobody objects to markus addressing this issue. The objections are that > his implementation breaks things, and handling illegal body content is > not a compelling enough reason for breaking things. > > o At least one suggestion (mine) has been floated on a way to implement this > in a way that does not break things. Two suggestions -- mine as well. I think it's mostly complementary to yours rather than at cross purposes, some of the aspects it's fixing are different. -- PMM _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
