Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 23:15:40 -0400
From: Richard Coleman <coleman(_at_)math(_dot_)gatech(_dot_)edu>
Message-ID:
<199805200315(_dot_)XAA09666(_at_)cypress(_dot_)math(_dot_)gatech(_dot_)edu>
| The BIG question is whether I should leave the default the same, or
| change it so that bitstuffing is not done by default. Since it is
| uncommon to burst RFC934 encapsulated messages these days, I'm
| tempted to turn the bitstuffing off by default.
If you get a bounce message from munnari.oz.au you get it in 934 format,
precisely because it is so easy to burst (either with something which
just does that, or just with a text editor). Many digests also still
come in 934 format. Mime digesting seems comparatively rarely used, so
much so in fact, that when I had a message from a listserv, telling me
to forward back the message to confirm my list subscription, and I did that
by sending back a "content-type: message/rfc822" the listserv bitched, and
said it didn't know how to handle that content type... I had to repeat
the thing, this time using 934 forwarding.
The reason the option was undocumented in mh was because in normal use no-one
should ever be using the thing (it also isn't in any sense "bitstuffing" so
I don't think your new name is quite right, "dashstuffing" or even
"bytestuffing" would be a better name change if "dashmunging" isn't what you
want - though changing the name without a good reason is just another
unnecessary incompatability with MH). To go from "no-one should ever
normally use this" to "this is now the default" is a pretty big change.
Not that I much care of course, as I'm not an nmh user, and don't plan to
be, except that every incpmpatible change is going to make exmh harder to
support.
kre