ken wrote: > >thinking about this further, i think i might rather teach Attach about > >mh message numbers and sequences than add a new Forward header. > >Attach is already examining its file arguments to decide how to a > >attach any given file -- teaching it recognize message specifiers > >isn't a big stretch. this would clearly lead to these two > >invocations having different results: > > Two problems I see: > > "Attach" means, "attach this file with a disposition of 'attachment'". > It takes one argument: filename. The #forw directive (which I am > planning on emulating) takes a folder name and message numbers; it does > not create a disposition, so it defaults to "inline". This means different > semantics for Attach depending on the file type; I think that's bad. > > It's more code.
that's fine. i was kind of typing while thinking. and i hadn't fully appreciated the "inline" distinction. paul =---------------------- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 50.9 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
