>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. --Ken _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
