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
Fair enough. Though the editor macro could just as easily include the
> 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
Nmh-workers mailing list