Clearly, you need to be more opinionated. :-) nmh is already happy to
inc malformatted, see what I did there, emails, e.g. sortm later
complains about unparsable dates, and I think that should continue.
So, as long as we're talking about things ... here's my feelings:
- inc should continue to be able to incorporate any sort of random crap
without failing, like it does now.
- The other utilities should try to "continue" as much as they can, while
providing reasonable feedback to the user.
I'd expect and like repl to complain and not present me with a draft to
edit. I can then investigate based on the error message. This suggests
the failed attempt to parse the To header should ripple back up; longjmp
FTW. ;-)
Whether a template that didn't refer to To would spot the problem
depends on if the existing code parses all interesting headers up front
or only upon reference. I wouldn't expect this to change, just be
documented.
Doing that would require some more smarts to the format engine; that's
possible, we've slowly been making it smarter. Might have to figure
out how much smarter it needs to be. But how will that interact with
higher-level front-ends to nmh?
It's a rare enough occurence that investigation should result, not some
stab at automated DWIM fixing. It Outlook starts doing this every
weekday then we'd have more evidence upon which to do the right thing.
I am wondering what other MUAs do when presented with these messages, though.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers