On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 05:07:17PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:44:18AM -0400, Derek Martin wrote:On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 10:41:58AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > However, saying that mutt adds those headers by accident or as a bug seems a > bit uninformed.Fair enough.But--and I s'pose I may have just missed it--I don't recall seeing any discussion of this feature on this list. Learning of such things is precisely why I'm on this list, so... I'm not sure whether it's better (from my perspective) that I missed it, or if it never happened. =8^)
That's fair enough back. I don't think I engaged the list in discussion of the change. :^)
What I did do was a minimal implementation of the spec at the time, so that Mutt could read messages from other clients that started sending with a hidden Subject header, for interoperability.
Writing was not enabled by default, but when enabled, it did send most/all of the spec listed headers (at the time), again for interoperability.
Doing "things" with other headers or even displaying them would open a big can of worms, so I kept the implementation minimal on purpose.
I don't have an opinion on the future direction Mutt takes here. It wouldn't be hard to rip out the existing implementation, or to extend it.
However, I'll just remind everyone (again) that I'm definitely on my way out, completely, of Mutt development. I stopped being a maintainer a couple years ago, and my time available just keeps getting less and less. :-( I just don't have the time to participate anymore, not to mention review patches.
If others really want the project to continue, it would be good for someone(s) to start picking up the reins.
-- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
