Hi Ken > I admit I am not clear where Ralph stands on this particular issue; > perhaps the Marmite shortage is affecting things :-)
Marmite's basic ingredient is yeast sludge, a waste product from brewing beer. Give me the beer. It's solely produced in Burton, which used to have a large beer-brewing industry. "Come friendly bombs and fall on Burton!" It's on my target list just above Twiglets. > 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. http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2016-10/msg00096.html I think `Nmh-' prefix is better on these nmh-directive headers if everything else stays working as today. I wandered off onto other options to try and trigger ideas that might be acceptable to both camps. And widen the problem a bit to consider something that helps, or at least doesn't hinder, other problems. Ideally, Allow the user to write any legal header and have it hit the wire. Ensure nmh-directive headers don't leak. Ensure nmh-directive headers don't clash with external headers. Catch typos in header names so they don't hit the wire. Starting to use Nmh- from now on, having Nmh-* stripped by post(8), does some of that. Another alternative would be to consider all headers to be nmh's fare; the user cannot put `Foo: bar' in a draft. This would mean we can continue to dribble over the namespace over time since it's ours, all ours. We can catch corruptions, `Subjct'. And post can ensure only known headers reach the wire, after correct encoding has been applied. The `escape' so users can still add their own headers could be another nmh-directive header, e.g. «Wire: Foo: Bar». I don't think any valid header line from a user is an invalid header value, so it can just have a new header key prefixed? (I'd probably go for `X' for external to save the clutter.) > 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:, No, because users may have a reason to add headers unknown to nmh. > 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 "This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2014." Also, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=melnikov&sort=&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on&by=group&group= doesn't list it or an RFC conversion. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers