>The only responsible choice is to include the prefix. Otherwise, we >run the risk of messages leaking out with internal pseudoeheader names. >Like this message!
Man, how did you get that out there? Well, I guess if you ran mhbuild on it first and then added it, that could happen. >Note that Nmh-Attach and Attach are synonomous. And all others, except >Envelope-From:, used by nmh originated with MH. I understand that ... it's just that the original designers of MH didn't think it was a problem. Okay, fine, they probably didn't envision things like Attach or Forward, but they didn't envision MIME either. So, that's one of those things where there is prior art, but I will admit it's not super compelling. >> I don't see the value of having a special Nmh- prefix. > >Traceability is valuable. Yeah, okay, I can get that ... it's just ... well, I kind of want users to be able to add those headers. So having awkward names makes that harder. I guess it depends on what you think is important. >The won't harm anything, but how will Ralph know who to ask to fix it? Ha! Well, okay, can't really argue with that one. :-) >Does anyone manually insert "Attach:" into their draft messages? I do, FWIW. It may be that I'm the only one. I admit that maybe I'm a little frustrated, as I thought this was thoroughly litigated in these threads: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2012-03/msg00015.html http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2014-01/msg00009.html That doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to revisit those decisions; I just kind of felt this had been settled already. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
