Jon wrote: > So my opinion is to live with it for now. If you're happy with > attach, then use it. If you want to use mhbuild, go ahead. Just > don't use both. Save your energy for a coding effort with a greater > value proposition.
The movtivation behind all this is to always produce MIME messages. An easy (well, not quite) way would be for post(8) to run mhbuild on every message. The way things are now, we have four cases for the draft message by the time it reaches post: 1) the user had already run mhbuild, such as via whatnow's mime 2) send(1) had already run mhbuild to actually attach what the user requested via whatnow's attach 3) the user had otherwise inserted MIME-Version and Content-Type headers 4) the draft is not formatted as MIME 1), 2), and 3) could be easily handled by -auto (or whatever it's called): it turns mhbuild into a no-op. That would be easy. For 4), the draft can't be blindly run through mhbuild because it might contain things that look like directives but aren't. That would be solved by mhbuild -nodirectives. Conceptually (or even actually), we could just leave send's handling of Nmh-Attachments as-is, and just concentrate on 4). Or to look at it another way, send's handling of Nmh-Attachment headers already implements the effect of -nodirectives. But that really should be moved into mhbuild. The lockouts really are orthogonal. Though not difficult to implement. But maybe they should be comittted separately. David _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers