On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:15:38 +0200, Marek Mikus wrote: >>>What wonders me is why there are three different macro's (two of which >>>don't seem to work properly) that arguably serve the same purpose.
>>Typical known redundancy :-) >%HDRheader returns current message header >%HDRheader="text" and %ADDHEADER adds header or adds text to existing header >%SETHEADER changes existing header >I see no typical redundant macro like %POSTPONE and %DELAY, where %DELAY >was kept to have backward compatibility I have re-examined the help file but I still fail to see the relevance of the %HDR macro's. Lots of regular RFC headers have a "-" in them (Like Message-ID and In-Reply-To) and a macro that can't handle it seems to be a bit superfluous. What's more, refering to them in the Header Definition Window is IMHO plain misleading because it leads users into the wrong direction. The function of the %ADDHeader macro is clear to me now. But I think the name is a bit misleading (ADDTOHeader should have been more apt) and I consider the double "Value" I encountered to be a bug. Arjan -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________________________________________________ Current version is 4.2.4 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
