lyndon wrote: > > > On Oct 10, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Ken Hornstein <k...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > I am going on prior art here; specifically, Fcc. I don't see the value > > in adding an Nmh- prefix to any Nmh-specific header. I realize this is > > something that there is not universal agreement on. > > It's a simple namespace issue. These headers escape the nmh > environment. Being generic, other software might attribute other > meanings to them, and do unexpected things. Putting everything > behind "nmh-", and advertising we do so, mostly eliminates the > risk. > > This means, moving forward, we only generate nmh-* headers, while > continuing to accept the old ones. > > This is particularly important now that "forw -mime" is becoming > the default; these headers *will* escape now.
why? how? it seems to me that you have to work pretty hard to get them into the wild -- mhbuild will eliminate them normally, won't it? paul =---------------------- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 49.5 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
