>Clearly, you need to be more opinionated. :-) nmh is already happy to >inc malformatted, see what I did there, emails, e.g. sortm later >complains about unparsable dates, and I think that should continue.
So, as long as we're talking about things ... here's my feelings: - inc should continue to be able to incorporate any sort of random crap without failing, like it does now. - The other utilities should try to "continue" as much as they can, while providing reasonable feedback to the user. >I'd expect and like repl to complain and not present me with a draft to >edit. I can then investigate based on the error message. This suggests >the failed attempt to parse the To header should ripple back up; longjmp >FTW. ;-) > >Whether a template that didn't refer to To would spot the problem >depends on if the existing code parses all interesting headers up front >or only upon reference. I wouldn't expect this to change, just be >documented. Doing that would require some more smarts to the format engine; that's possible, we've slowly been making it smarter. Might have to figure out how much smarter it needs to be. But how will that interact with higher-level front-ends to nmh? >It's a rare enough occurence that investigation should result, not some >stab at automated DWIM fixing. It Outlook starts doing this every >weekday then we'd have more evidence upon which to do the right thing. I am wondering what other MUAs do when presented with these messages, though. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
