david wrote:
 > 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

Reply via email to