In 1.7 RC3, the mhl(1) man page refers to mhl.format. It looks like
that file is now called mhl.headers.
And while I'm here, thanks for the work y'all do on nmh.
regards,
mike
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.or
>In 1.7 RC3, the mhl(1) man page refers to mhl.format. It looks like
>that file is now called mhl.headers.
So ... that hasn't changed. But how things work now is a bit confusing.
If you have a MIME message (and most are now), show(1) ends up
invoking mhshow(1), which DOES use mhl(1) to display
So I'm reading the manpage, and hit this:
Checking the Contents
The -check switch tells mhshow to check each content for an integrity
checksum. If a content has such a checksum (specified as a Content-MD5
header field), then mhshow will attempt to verify the integrity o
>Given the deprecated nature of MD5, should we keep this around? When was the
>last time one of these was seen in the wild? Seems like most people who worry
>about integrity are PGP-signing with a SHA hash of some variety (hopefully not
>SHA-1 :).
Weee I'm with you on that, but other peop
Hi Valdis,
> Given the deprecated nature of MD5, should we keep this around? When
> was the last time one of these was seen in the wild?
My .mh_profile specifies -check for a bunch of programs so Content-MD5
appears if I MIME-process an email, e.g. `forw -mime'. I don't rely of
it for cryptograp
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:32:07 -, Ralph Corderoy said:
> This topic popped up at the end of August, and a few years back when Ken
> wanted to "garbage collect" it; Lyndon then said he made use of it to
> spot identical parts across emails.
Do enough MUAs/people generate the header for it to be
Hi Valdis,
> > This topic popped up at the end of August, and a few years back when
> > Ken wanted to "garbage collect" it; Lyndon then said he made use of
> > it to spot identical parts across emails.
>
> Do enough MUAs/people generate the header for it to be useful for that
> purpose?
I expect
