The only responsible choice is to include the prefix. Otherwise, we
run the risk of messages leaking out with internal pseudoeheader names.
Like this message!
Man, how did you get that out there? Well, I guess if you ran mhbuild
on it first and then added it, that could happen.
Note that Nmh-Attach and Attach are synonomous. And all others, except
Envelope-From:, used by nmh originated with MH.
I understand that ... it's just that the original designers of MH didn't
think it was a problem. Okay, fine, they probably didn't envision
things like Attach or Forward, but they didn't envision MIME either.
So, that's one of those things where there is prior art, but I will
admit it's not super compelling.
I don't see the value of having a special Nmh- prefix.
Traceability is valuable.
Yeah, okay, I can get that ... it's just ... well, I kind of want
users to be able to add those headers. So having awkward names makes
that harder. I guess it depends on what you think is important.
The won't harm anything, but how will Ralph know who to ask to fix it?
Ha! Well, okay, can't really argue with that one. :-)
Does anyone manually insert "Attach:" into their draft messages?
I do, FWIW. It may be that I'm the only one.
I admit that maybe I'm a little frustrated, as I thought this was
thoroughly litigated in these threads:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2012-03/msg00015.html
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2014-01/msg00009.html
That doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to revisit those decisions; I just
kind of felt this had been settled already.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers