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 _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
