From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david@tethera.net>
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743D06DE0ED6
 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 10:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.042
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[AWL=-0.041, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled
Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id tIZGTK5blsEN for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
 Mon, 27 May 2019 10:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197])
 by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 577286DE0ED0
 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Mon, 27 May 2019 10:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.89)
 (envelope-from <david@tethera.net>)
 id 1hVJua-0001P3-1N; Mon, 27 May 2019 13:59:52 -0400
Received: (nullmailer pid 32122 invoked by uid 1000);
 Mon, 27 May 2019 17:59:50 -0000
From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
To: "Rollins, Jameson" <jrollins@caltech.edu>,
 Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>,
 Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/17] cli/show: add information about which headers
 were protected
In-Reply-To: <87k1eb6btl.fsf@caltech.edu>
References: <20190526221610.2833-1-dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
 <20190526221610.2833-7-dkg@fifthhorseman.net> <871s0kkxy3.fsf@tethera.net>
 <87k1eb6btl.fsf@caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 14:59:50 -0300
Message-ID: <878sur6and.fsf@tethera.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 17:59:58 -0000

"Rollins, Jameson" <jrollins@caltech.edu> writes:

> On Mon, May 27 2019, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
>> The name "header-mask" is a bit generic, but I don't have my head in
>> this topic like you do. I was thinking of something like
>> "replaced-headers", but it's only a mild suggestion.
>
> I think the point is that the headers are more accurately "masked" than
> "replaced", since you can look under the hood and recover what the
> original header was.

Yes, I see what you mean.  It's just that for me a "mask" brings to mind
bitwise operations.  I guess I'd prefer "masked-headers" to
"header-mask", but if the two of you are convinced then I won't block
it.

d