Jon Steinhart wrote:
Note that there are two Return-Path header fields. If you do a scan -format
"%{Return-Path}"
you'll get the value of the last one. Is that what we want?
I don't know, but the BUGS section of the scan(1) manpage claims you get the
first one, not the last, so if that's wrong we should change it :-)
What is the proper formatting of header fields that occur more than once.
I guess we could extend the mh-format(5) spec so that everything that
accepted a 'component' (header name) allowed 'component' (gives first or
last or anyway something consistent), 'component:all' (gives the whole lot
concatenated), 'component:n' for integer n (gives the nth instance) and
'component:-n' (gives the nth-from-last instance).
But that's quite a bit of work and I'd rather see a genuine use-case
for looking at multiple headers first :-)
BTW, I haven't checked, but I'd guess that this is a memory leak!
We should fix that, at least, if so.
PS: one of those Return-Path: headers is in breach of RFC5322 because
it doesn't have the angle-brackets. Furthermore it is the fake one
cooked up by nmh as a way of showing the sender address and timestamp
from the 'From_' lines in mbox format files (look for the RPATHS #define).
Perhaps we should fix that too... [why do we use Return-Path: and
Delivery-Date: for this rather than X-MH-Envelope-From and
X-MH-Delivery-Date or something similarly unambiguous, anybody know?]
-- PMM
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers