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 =---------------------- paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 62.8 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
