Ken wrote: > Can the people who want to have "attach" append mhbuild directives > explain what their thinking is, specifically why they think their > approach is preferrable? I went back and looked at the thread very > carefully, and none of the proponents of this approach really covered > why they thought this was better.
To me, the big advantage was simplifying that decision logic that you presented. It just seems more complex than necessary. The ability to review/edit mhbuild output is a bonus, but not a primary goal for me. Another bonus would be to move error checking up: instead of send(1) tripping over a nonexistant file, whatnow(1) would. That's not of much value to me because I always ls before attach'ing, so again it minor to me. I have no problem putting parameters in pseudo-headers rather than directives in the body, if that's where you're headed. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
