"Rollins, Jameson" <jroll...@caltech.edu> writes:

> On Mon, May 27 2019, David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> wrote:
>> The name "header-mask" is a bit generic, but I don't have my head in
>> this topic like you do. I was thinking of something like
>> "replaced-headers", but it's only a mild suggestion.
> I think the point is that the headers are more accurately "masked" than
> "replaced", since you can look under the hood and recover what the
> original header was.

Yes, I see what you mean.  It's just that for me a "mask" brings to mind
bitwise operations.  I guess I'd prefer "masked-headers" to
"header-mask", but if the two of you are convinced then I won't block


notmuch mailing list

Reply via email to