Hi Paul, > > > +1. The `Forward' header is grabbing another one for nmh's use, > > > in addition to the existing `Attach'. Should we be using > > > `Nmh-Forward' if the user isn't likely to have the hassle of > > > typing them most of the time? > > > > Sigh. I think when we hashed this out last time, the (rough) > > consensus was that not puttting in a "Nmh-" prefix was fine. Attach > > had prior art (I think mutt used it), and Forward seems to be > > similarly named. > > i vote for presenting the user with a user-friendly component name. > if conflict is an issue, could we make the names of these "special" > headers tuneable via a profile entry?
Isn't that just another level of code, documentation, and grokking by the user when Nmh-Forward would just sit there, be spotted and understood by the user, and typically left alone. Either the message numbers might be edited, or the whole line deleted. I actually think it's an advantage to see that this is a Nmh header and not one that may have general purpose interpretation. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
