> mutt > presents me with a complete RFC-822 text in my favourite editor, where i > can do with the headers whatever i want. then comes an empty line so the > mailer knows that the body begins, and the body itself. i like that.
Yes, even a reactionary like myself threw "mail" out the window after using mutt. Still, I can't see any problem with using the EXTERNAL command to run a script which supplies mutt with a subject line and whatever else it needs on the command line. > could the reason for lynx' mailer doing headers extra be error handling? > for a novice i can see the advantage. Perhaps. Mainly, though, I think the MUA was originally designed with the idea of allowing anonymous users to mail from a public-access Lynx. No one is going to argue that Lynx's mailer is more than rudimentary. In the past I vaguely remember arguments that it should be stripped from Lynx (as should news support) because it doesn't follow the RFCs. I don't think that the arguments were adequately addressed. A few years ago I recall that mail was the cause of a rather annoying bug (something about allowing the insertion of control characters, which then made it possible to insert and/or tamper with headers at will?). In short, I'm not totally down on Eduardo's patch. Quite the contrary, if there were more people with more time available, ideally Lynx would do exactly what everyone's asking for in a secure manner, and the presently inadequate MUA support would be stripped from Lynx entirely, including the relic "c" command, and the "LYNXPRINT://MAIL_FILE/" under the "p" command. What implications would this have for the Windows and DOS ports I don't know. I just hate seeing Lynx take on yet another stop-gap, "experimental" feature. __Henry ; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
