>was there a consensus on this issue? (i'm assuming that there _was_
>a consensus on ken's proposal for adding a Forward: header similar to
>the current Attach:.)
There has not been.
Like I said before, I thought we had made this decision already. But
fine, if we want to revisit it then I am okay with that.
I guess this illustrates one problem with open-source projects; who makes
the decisions when people disagree? It's not that people who want
an Nmh- prefix are being unreasonable; I mean, I understand all of their
arguments; I just think my arguments are more compelling.
>as i understand it, the only worry with not using an Nmh- prefix is
>with leaking headers. since none of these are supposed to ever get
>out, conscientious scrubbing should get rid of them. (lyndon claimed
>they'd get out, but didn't offer an example of how, so i'm still
>unclear on that.)
Personally, even if those headers DID leak out, I don't think it would
be the end of the world, or even a big deal at all.
Nmh-workers mailing list