Paul wrote:
david wrote:
they're no more "internal" than "Fcc". so pleasing the eye, is,
actually, not unimportant.
If you want to talk about typing them in, I could understand. Pleasing
the eye, I just don't get it. Nmh-Attach doesn't look that much different
to me than Attach. (And it has the benefit to me of knowing that it will
get scrubbed by post, even if I mistype some pseudoheader as
Nmh-<not suitable for work word>. And I appreciate seeing pseudoheaders
differentiated from headers that will hit the wire.)
the header/pseudoheader namespace has been polluted since just about
when MH was written.
That doesn't mean we don't try to do better.
> If a new header called Attach: or Forward: or Anything Else: is
> standardized, but has different semantics than an nmh pseudoheader with
> the same name, what would nmh then do?
i guess we'd change the name.
Let's avoid that. This is an nmh policy issue. It's not the first time
we've faced it, and I expect won't be the last.
we can even document now, that if an
Attach or Forward or Dcc or Fcc header is ever standardized by the
IETF, that we'll probably need to change nmh's user interface at that
time. in fact, we should add that disclaimer anyway, since we already
face that potential problem with long-existing headers.
You provided the list before. We have a choice now of adding:
Forward
whatever else we come up with in the future, every time we do
or
Nmh-*
Let's not take on potential UI changes and a maintenance task that we can
avoid.
David
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers