"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 it. d _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list email@example.com https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch