> PF> and i prefer "attach" and "forward" to "nmh-attach" and "nmh-forward".
> To save keystrokes? That shouldn't be a consideration in scripts.
> And interactively, "a path" (at the What Now? prompt) is less
> keystrokes that "Attach: path".
not if i'm already in my editor, it's not. and if i wait until leaving
the editor, i'll likely forget the attachment. so i sometimes use an
editor macro to create the Attach: header, and sometimes i type it by
hand. i could easily imagine doing that with Forward: as well.
clearly this boils down to preference. i prefer not to confuse the MH
user interface (what appears in the text editor, and on the command
line) with unnecessary visual clutter.
> PF> as i understand it, the only worry with not using an Nmh- prefix is
> PF> with leaking headers. since none of these are supposed to ever get
> PF> out, conscientious scrubbing should get rid of them. (lyndon claimed
> PF> they'd get out, but didn't offer an example of how, so i'm still
> PF> unclear on that.)
> I put one in this message. (And also an Nmh-Attach: header, which will
> get scrubbed out, see below.)
great! so there's no problem. ;-) :-)
> KH> Personally, even if those headers DID leak out, I don't think it would
> KH> be the end of the world, or even a big deal at all.
> Yes, but why not try to do better: if one does leak out, allow anyone to
> track it down.
i'd think adding an "X-Mailer: nmh-1.6" header would help even more.
(i confess i'm a little surprised that we don't already emit such a
header. i see that exmh does.)
paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 62.8 degrees)
Nmh-workers mailing list