Paul F wrote: > 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.
Fair enough. Though the editor macro could just as easily include the Nmh- prefix. > i could easily imagine doing that with Forward: as well. And an editor macro could just as easily use a #forw directive. > > 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. ;-) :-) In case my point was missed: the Attach: header was not scrubbed out. > 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.) "X-" headers are deprecated by RFC 6648. We could add, say, a Mailer header. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
