nmh-workers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Changes to forw(1)

2016-10-13 15:16:58
Paul F wrote:

not if i'm already in my editor, it's not.  and if i wait until leaving
the editor, i'll likely forget the attachment.  so i sometimes use an
editor macro to create the Attach: header, and sometimes i type it by
hand.

Fair enough.  Though the editor macro could just as easily include the
Nmh- prefix.

i could easily imagine doing that with Forward: as well.

And an editor macro could just as easily use a #forw directive.

 > PF> as i understand it, the only worry with not using an Nmh- prefix is
 > PF> with leaking headers.  since none of these are supposed to ever get
 > PF> out, conscientious scrubbing should get rid of them.  (lyndon claimed
 > PF> they'd get out, but didn't offer an example of how, so i'm still
 > PF> unclear on that.)
 > 
 > I put one in this message.  (And also an Nmh-Attach: header, which will
 > get scrubbed out, see below.)

great!  so there's no problem.  ;-) :-)

In case my point was missed:  the Attach: header was not scrubbed out.

i'd think adding an "X-Mailer: nmh-1.6" header would help even more. 
(i confess i'm a little surprised that we don't already emit such a
header.  i see that exmh does.)

"X-" headers are deprecated by RFC 6648.  We could add, say, a Mailer
header.

David

_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>