>Ken wrote: > >> - Traceability - I mean, why is this an issue? Who would really care? > >I count four people who have responded that they do. I might have miscounted, >but obviously some do care.
I'm not saying that no one cares ... but I'm not sure I agree with the count there. As I read it, you and Lyndon are on the "Nmh-" prefix side, unambiguously. Me, Paul, and Oliver are unambiguously on the "no prefix" side. In terms of everyone else who has commented on this thread ... I admit I am not clear where Ralph stands on this particular issue; perhaps the Marmite shortage is affecting things :-) Ralph's not so crazy on letting those headers get out, but he never said that he wanted or didn't want a Nmh- prefix. Mark Begman did say that traceability was good, so I could see putting him in the Nmh- prefix camp (I would personally describe his position as "no objections", but he can correct me if he wants). Valdis only commented on the X-Mailer/User-Agent issue, and Robert's response did not really mention a preference either. So, it's a bit of a wash there. >> Also, copying other art ... the few MUAs >> that do stuff similar to this (mutt is the prime example I could find) >> use headers for this purpose without any special prefix, and > >And messages used to have a couple of handfuls of header lines. Now >they're 3 to 4 (of my) screenfulls, and some have names like X-AOL-IP, >X-Pobox-Relay-ID, X-MS-Has-Attach, >x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id, >X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped, >x-forefront-antispam-report, X-GMAIL-LABELS, X-GMAIL-THRID, and >X-GMAIL-MSGID. So I don't buy your point about prior art. At all. Well, I was thinking more about the the particular thing _nmh_ does, in terms of having a user or another program insert a header for another part of the MUA to interpret and remove before sending. I believe, looking at those headers, those are inserted by MTAs, and they are intended to be sent. >> and no one seems to care. > >I care. And others have indicated that they care. Fair enough; I guess I didn't mean "there were zero people who cared", but more, "There was no general outrage across the Interwebs". As long as we're beating this into the ground, I wanted to bring up something else. In another message you said: >The status quo supports both: Nmh-Attach: is used by the code, and if >someone wants to use Attach:, they can. I realized that change went in post-1.6, so that's not completely accurate in terms of released code. Also ... if we are having post(8) scrub out headers with an Nmh- prefix, we could also have it scrub out any header, like Attach:, and we could have it put in a X-Mailer or User-Agent header. It looks like that was never standardized for Email, but it comes from HTTP and there was an Internet-Draft here to use it for Email: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-email-user-agent-00 So if traceability is the major concern, would a User-Agent header address everyone's issues? _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers