> david wrote:
> they're no more "internal" than "Fcc". so pleasing the eye, is,
> actually, not unimportant.
If you want to talk about typing them in, I could understand. Pleasing
the eye, I just don't get it. Nmh-Attach doesn't look that much different
to me than Attach. (And it has the benefit to me of knowing that it will
get scrubbed by post, even if I mistype some pseudoheader as
Nmh-<not suitable for work word>. And I appreciate seeing pseudoheaders
differentiated from headers that will hit the wire.)
> the header/pseudoheader namespace has been polluted since just about
> when MH was written.
That doesn't mean we don't try to do better.
> > If a new header called Attach: or Forward: or Anything Else: is
> > standardized, but has different semantics than an nmh pseudoheader with
> > the same name, what would nmh then do?
> i guess we'd change the name.
Let's avoid that. This is an nmh policy issue. It's not the first time
we've faced it, and I expect won't be the last.
> we can even document now, that if an
> Attach or Forward or Dcc or Fcc header is ever standardized by the
> IETF, that we'll probably need to change nmh's user interface at that
> time. in fact, we should add that disclaimer anyway, since we already
> face that potential problem with long-existing headers.
You provided the list before. We have a choice now of adding:
whatever else we come up with in the future, every time we do
Let's not take on potential UI changes and a maintenance task that we can
Nmh-workers mailing list