Ralph wrote: > Rather that re-tread worn ground, how about a considered reply to my > suggestion that all headers be known to nmh and the user having to add > to that list,
Is "user having to add to that list" in your original proposal? I'm missing it. Is it a profile entry to allow the user to add known header names? If that's the case, I don't like maintenance responsibility, even if it is the user's. Though I think I'm missing something. > or pass it as the value of a `wire' header. :-) > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2016-10/msg00189.html I don't feel as strongly about your proposal overall. The "directive: header: value" syntax for unknown headers is different from usual headers/pseudoheaders, and that's both good and not so. But more important, we'd have to maintain a list of known headers. I don't think that's as easy as it sounds. It doesn't change often, but it does, and would introduce incompatibilities for users who use different versions of nmh (as in home and work). We sometimes insist that users use previous versions at their own peril, but I'd rather minimize that, given the slow release cycle of nmh. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
