Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 20:56:28 -0400
From: Ken Hornstein <kenh@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <20190517005629.C904F14F6C1@pb-smtp2.pobox.com>
| People with their own scan formats would see no change, except that they'd
| have to change at some point in the future when we supported encrypted
| email properly. Thoughts? I'd like to do this for 1.8.
No objections to the change (I am one with my own scan formats .. I
have several).
However I wonder at the rationale for including this info in the
scan format at all. We don't print 'M' if the message is MIME
encoded, and we don't print 'F' if there's a face header, and nor
do we print 'A' if there are attachments - what's so special about
encrypyted that warrants this special treatment?
To me it smells of the way that the TV stations advertise HD (or
now UHD or HD4000 or whatever they call it) - not because anything
is actually different in the (mostly gibberish) content, but because
they have spent a bunch of money and effort upgrading to support
better quality, and they want to make sure that everyone knows about
that.
What I'd do is simply remove the $?{encrypted} stuff from the scan
formats, and leave it at that for now.
If there's ever a useful function to be served by a %(encrypted)
function, it can be added later, when we know what that purpose is,
and what the function should do to best satisfy the requirement.
Note that 'E' in the format is different to the alternate annotations
that can occur in the same position (and trump the E if more than one
applies) in that the others tell what I have done to the message
(that I have replied, or forwarded it) - which is useful information
to have in the scan listing. Random extracts related to content type
is not.
kre
--
nmh-workers
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers