Paul Fox wrote: > in general, i agree, and it was my first reaction, after seeing > that content-disposition has been on the mh todo list for a > number of years. in this particular case, the changes aren't for > me -- they're for my wife, to use at work, where she's been > burned in the past by using local copies of stuff that is also > supplied by "IT", so i was trying to script the solution instead. > in any case, your patch is a lot simpler than what i would have > come up with -- i probably would have duplicated much of the code > that lets one insert Content-Description headers, in order to let > the user specify Content-Disposition in a similar manner (with, > perhaps { } delimeters in the draft file.
It would be good to have this working in the C code and it may not be too hard. Has anyone got any good ideas on a syntax. Using { } isn't a bad idea. At a simple level we might have { attachment } and { inline } but what should it do by default? And can we perhaps do something to avoid the need to repeat the filename three times in this: #text/plain; name="file.txt" { attachment; filename="file.txt" } /tmp/file.txt I'd quite like to make it fairly intelligent by default. So: #text/plain /tmp/file.txt would result in: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="file.txt" and you would need: #text/plain { } /tmp/file.txt for no disposition header. The name attribute in content-type is deprecated in rfc2046 by the way. Content-Disposition is defined in rfc1806. Oliver _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers