ralph wrote:
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
well, speaking "typically", this would also apply to "Forward".
adding the "Nmh-" prefix would create the very first such header. as i
understand it, we already have 4 nmh-specific headers: Resent,
Forwarded, Replied, and Attach. i don't see much value in creating a
unique prefix for the fifth.
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.
thinking about this further, i think i might rather teach Attach about
mh message numbers and sequences than add a new Forward header.
Attach is already examining its file arguments to decide how to a
attach any given file -- teaching it recognize message specifiers
isn't a big stretch. this would clearly lead to these two
invocations having different results:
Attach: cur
Attach: ./cur
but i think i'd be okay with that.
paul
=----------------------
paul fox, pgf(_at_)foxharp(_dot_)boston(_dot_)ma(_dot_)us (arlington, ma,
where it's 45.5 degrees)
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers