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