Hi Paul,
+1. The `Forward' header is grabbing another one for nmh's use,
in addition to the existing `Attach'. Should we be using
`Nmh-Forward' if the user isn't likely to have the hassle of
typing them most of the time?
Sigh. I think when we hashed this out last time, the (rough)
consensus was that not puttting in a "Nmh-" prefix was fine. Attach
had prior art (I think mutt used it), and Forward seems to be
similarly named.
i vote for presenting the user with a user-friendly component name.
if conflict is an issue, could we make the names of these "special"
headers tuneable via a profile entry?
Isn't that just another level of code, documentation, and grokking by
the user when Nmh-Forward would just sit there, be spotted and
understood by the user, and typically left alone. Either the message
numbers might be edited, or the whole line deleted. I actually think
it's an advantage to see that this is a Nmh header and not one that may
have general purpose interpretation.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers