Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

Thus said David Levine on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:16:38 -0400: > "X-" headers are deprecated by RFC 6648. We could add, say, a Mailer > header. While the RFC does say this: 3. SHOULD NOT prefix their parameter names with "X-" or similar constructs. Why? What's wrong with "X-"? If the

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

Date:Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:58:53 -0400 From:Ken Hornstein Message-ID: <20161014145854.ab15644...@pb-smtp2.pobox.com> | Ralph, kre? Would you like to clarify your positions for thick-headed | fellows like me? As was pointed out in anothr message, I

Re: [Nmh-workers] Starting the final call for features for 1.7

Ralph wrote: > > > I think the test is mhparam(1)'s checking for a TTY on FDs 0, 1, and > > > 2. OpenBSD's man page says $SHELL is used. Perhaps the test can > > > make use of this. > > > > > > $ cat >cmd > > > #! /bin/sh > > > > > > mhparam path > > > $ chmod +x cmd > > > $

Re: [Nmh-workers] Conjectures about whom

>I am thinking about writing a postproc, using Ken Hornstein's example as a >template (though I will probably use Java rather than bash). It will invoke >whom and examine its output. I can find no documentation about whom's >non-error output format. Here is my conjecture about it. As an aside:

[Nmh-workers] Conjectures about whom

I am thinking about writing a postproc, using Ken Hornstein's example as a template (though I will probably use Java rather than bash). It will invoke whom and examine its output. I can find no documentation about whom's non-error output format. Here is my conjecture about it. Each output line (I

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

>> 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, we can't. See previous messages from Ralph, kre, and me on that. Hrm. I interpreted Ralph's email as he wanted to filter out _every_ unknown email

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

Ken wrote: > So if traceability is the major concern, would a User-Agent header > address everyone's issues? No, because: Nmh-Attach: foo User-Agent: nmh-1.7 is more informative than: Attach: foo User-Agent: nmh-1.7 And, "This means, moving forward, we only generate nmh-*

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

david wrote: > Ken wrote: > > > 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, we can't. See previous messages from Ralph, kre, and me on that. huh? if that's what you meant, that's not what

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

Ken wrote: > 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, we can't. See previous messages from Ralph, kre, and me on that. David ___ Nmh-workers mailing list

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

>Ken wrote: > >> - Traceability - I mean, why is this an issue? Who would really care? > >I count four people who have responded that they do. I might have miscounted, >but obviously some do care. I'm not saying that no one cares ... but I'm not sure I agree with the count there. As I read it,

Re: [Nmh-workers] I see nmh is now available in epel repo for RHEL, Scientific Linux and CentOS

Jón wrote: > This morning I got a notification from the package manager that > a new version of nmh was available. This was a nice surprise as > hitherto I had built my own rpms for nmh (and was rather behind > the times). So now upgraded to 1.6 > > I didn’t see any mention on here that this was

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

Ken wrote: > - Traceability - I mean, why is this an issue? Who would really care? I count four people who have responded that they do. I might have miscounted, but obviously some do care. > - Polluting the namespace - I mean, also ... really, is this a thing we > should have to worry

[Nmh-workers] I see nmh is now available in epel repo for RHEL, Scientific Linux and CentOS

This morning I got a notification from the package manager that a new version of nmh was available. This was a nice surprise as hitherto I had built my own rpms for nmh (and was rather behind the times). So now upgraded to 1.6 I didn’t see any mention on here that this was going to happen. --

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

Paul F wrote: > but there's no solution, to this, right? we can't control typos, whether > there's an Nmh- prefix on the header or not. and we're not going to change > Fcc/Dcc/Bcc in any case. so isn't this is a moot point? We can't eliminate the effects of arbitrary typos, of course, but we

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

ralph wrote: > Hi Ken, > > > > If they're are mistyped Attach, Bcc, or Dcc then they could be > > > embarrassing? > > > > Well ... sure? But I think that's an issue with any header name. > > No, I mean "Subjct: Nice to see you again" isn't embarassing; I always > intended they'd see

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

Hi Ken, > > If they're are mistyped Attach, Bcc, or Dcc then they could be > > embarrassing? > > Well ... sure? But I think that's an issue with any header name. No, I mean "Subjct: Nice to see you again" isn't embarassing; I always intended they'd see the header's value. "Bc: myboss,