Re: lynx-dev patch to add description of extended INCLUDE syntax to

[Henry Nelson]

> Sorry...

I didn't understand this, and didn't want it to just ride.  What I meant
was that you were the only person who was making any sense to me.

> Which should include (pardon the pun) whether users get to use INCLUDE ...

Well, I hope I AM wrong, and that allowing nesting ad infinitum (the ISP
putting INCLUDE in the parameter string) is a good idea.

Anyway, I trust Tom to keep his twice-stated promise to "do it better".

On a related theme, I was worried somewhat by Vlad's comment on mine:
Henry:
 "Security risk features have never been allowed to be overridden by defines
 in lynx.cfg from the compile-time selections."
Vlad:
 I don't think it's so ^. If the values of these settings are not allowed to
 override compile-time selections, then why do they exist?

I have always allowed my accounted users to access the lynx binary directly,
i.e., to formulate their own command line and make aliases so they can use
Lynx interactively or in batch mode, besides allowing them to have their own
lynx.cfg.  Is it really unsafe to do this? (as Vlad implies, and as his ISP
seems to believe -- they wrap the binary in a script, the reason why INCLUDE
was conceived.)

__Henry