Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wednesday 14 May 2003 16:05, Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:24:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: Usually this is controlled by the Content-Disposition: header. Content-Disposition: inline should be displayed inline; Content-Disposition: attachment will often be hidden until explicitly opened. Assuming the mail client pays attention, of course. I guess using MIME structures like that more would make more people complain to devlopers of MUAs that don't handle this properly... I don't know many MUAs, but perhaps others do. Q: is content-disposition handled properly, especially for messag/rfc822 type attachments? (Or if not, are message attachments displayed inline by default?) KMail 1.5.1: yes Evolution: yes (already in 1.0.x IIRC) sylpheed? mozilla mail? (whatever the name of that thing is right now...) I guess quite critical would be mutt pine as especially developers are known to use textmode mail readers quite a lot. (Yes, I've stopped caring about users of a certain other widespread MUA, as you've probably guessed anyway when you notice me using PGP/MIME to sign messages...) cheers -- vbi -- random link of the day: http://fortytwo.ch/sienapei/laegoong pgp8HVqzpTEpK.pgp Description: signature
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:27:07PM +0100, Darren Salt wrote: so maybe it was actually only filed in my brain (which has no web interface) ... We need a bug system for developer's brains. Agreed... $ mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s Misplacement of apostrophes Package: doogie developers' brains, surely. Cc: $ ;-) But... maybe the developer in question really has 1 brain. (Incidentally, that might explain a few other things as well :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: is content-disposition handled properly, especially for messag/rfc822 type attachments? (Or if not, are message attachments displayed inline by default?) Gnus: yes (since 5.8.0, the first MIME-aware version) (Yes, I've stopped caring about users of a certain other widespread MUA, as you've probably guessed anyway when you notice me using PGP/MIME to sign messages...) I'm not actually clear how much this is a good thing; at some level, we do want people reporting bugs. (Though at the same level, we also want them reading and using debian-user, and get a real MUA is a common sentiment there.) But yeah, its unnamed inbound MIME handling is pretty terrible; content-disposition is completely ignored, so if I attach a file to mail, the recipient sees my .signature as a separate attachment... -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal. -- Abra Mitchell
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:47:34AM -0400, David Z Maze wrote: Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (Yes, I've stopped caring about users of a certain other widespread MUA, as you've probably guessed anyway when you notice me using PGP/MIME to sign messages...) I'm not actually clear how much this is a good thing; at some level, we do want people reporting bugs. Let's not overstate the impact here. Changing the -done acks to include messages using MIME won't make any difference to people reporting bugs; it may at most involve one extra step for people who use poor MUAs, but it's probably no different from the one extra step they need to take when receiving PGP/MIME-signed mail. On the flip side, it will probably be much easier to read some acks in reasonably MIME-capable MUAs, particularly those which contained MIME attachments in the original report and those which were written in a different character set from the closing message. I think on balance it would be worth it. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:47:34AM -0400, David Z Maze wrote: Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Q: is content-disposition handled properly, especially for messag/rfc822 type attachments? (Or if not, are message attachments displayed inline by default?) Gnus: yes (since 5.8.0, the first MIME-aware version) (Yes, I've stopped caring about users of a certain other widespread MUA, as you've probably guessed anyway when you notice me using PGP/MIME to sign messages...) I'm not actually clear how much this is a good thing; at some level, we do want people reporting bugs. (Though at the same level, we also want them reading and using debian-user, and get a real MUA is a common sentiment there.) I dunno, I've always found use of Outlook to be a fairly good predictor of bug-reporting cluelessness (use of reportbug being another :). Looking at the bug graphs, I have a hard time believing that lack of bug reporting is a bottleneck for Debian. ;) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpUjf8EOcINu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
Steve Langasek writes: I dunno, I've always found use of Outlook to be a fairly good predictor of bug-reporting cluelessness (use of reportbug being another :). What's your objection to reportbug? -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, Wisconsin
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:06:21PM -0500, John Hasler wrote: Steve Langasek writes: I dunno, I've always found use of Outlook to be a fairly good predictor of bug-reporting cluelessness (use of reportbug being another :). What's your objection to reportbug? None whatsoever -- I use it myself from time to time. It just happens to make it easy for users who otherwise wouldn't stand a chance of figuring out the BTS interface to file bugs that shouldn't be filed. :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpDomLQ1oDAk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Assuming the mail client pays attention, of course. I guess using MIME structures like that more would make more people complain to devlopers of MUAs that don't handle this properly... I don't know many MUAs, but perhaps others do. Q: is content-disposition handled properly, especially for message/rfc822 type attachments? (Or if not, are message attachments displayed inline by default?) KMail 1.5.1: yes Evolution: yes (already in 1.0.x IIRC) sylpheed? mozilla mail? (whatever the name of that thing is right now...) MH-E: yes Peter
Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
I hate inline mail forwarding. It loses information, breaks programs
(inline-quoted mails typically get From: replaced by From: at some
step), and makes things like signature checking needlessly complicated.
debbugs forwards some emails as inline attachments, notably the bug
has been marked 'done' confirmation. I think that's wrong.
Unless there's a strong preference to keep things the way they are, I'd
like to prepare a patch to change that -- so speak up now.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Consulting @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Step by step walk the thousand-mile road.
-- Musashi, Book of Five Rings
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:46:47PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Unless there's a strong preference to keep things the way they are, I'd like to prepare a patch to change that -- so speak up now. Many e-mail clients require the user to explicitly open an attached e-mail message in order to view the contents. I'd much rather not have to do that in order to discover why a bug has been closed - it's much more friendly to have the explanation from the e-mail in line in the close message. This needn't exclude the possibilty of having the message as an attachment but it's something that it'd be good to bear in mind. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:46:47PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: I hate inline mail forwarding. It loses information, breaks programs (inline-quoted mails typically get From: replaced by From: at some step), and makes things like signature checking needlessly complicated. debbugs forwards some emails as inline attachments, notably the bug has been marked 'done' confirmation. I think that's wrong. Yes, and also it causes nasty problems with character sets. There's at least one bug filed, and I've been meaning to change it for a while now. Unless there's a strong preference to keep things the way they are, I'd like to prepare a patch to change that -- so speak up now. Go ahead. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:59:41PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:46:47PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Unless there's a strong preference to keep things the way they are, I'd like to prepare a patch to change that -- so speak up now. Many e-mail clients require the user to explicitly open an attached e-mail message in order to view the contents. I'd much rather not have to do that in order to discover why a bug has been closed - it's much more friendly to have the explanation from the e-mail in line in the close message. Usually this is controlled by the Content-Disposition: header. Content-Disposition: inline should be displayed inline; Content-Disposition: attachment will often be hidden until explicitly opened. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
Hi, Colin Watson wrote:
Yes, and also it causes nasty problems with character sets. There's at
least one bug filed, and I've been meaning to change it for a while now.
True.
Color me embarrassed for not checking the bug list before posting.
(#131881, for reference)
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Consulting @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
Hi, Mark Brown wrote:
Many e-mail clients require the user to explicitly open an attached e-mail
message in order to view the contents.
IMHO, if your client requires more keystrokes / mouseclicks to open an
attachment at the top than to scroll down to some random place near the
end of a message (depending on how large the close message actually is),
you should switch clients. ;-)
This needn't exclude the possibilty of having the message as an
attachment but it's something that it'd be good to bear in mind.
Hopefully your client honors the Content-Disposition: header, then this
isn't going to be a problem.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Consulting @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
--
Murphy's Last Law: If nothing went wrong today, you're probably dead.
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:24:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: Usually this is controlled by the Content-Disposition: header. Content-Disposition: inline should be displayed inline; Content-Disposition: attachment will often be hidden until explicitly opened. Assuming the mail client pays attention, of course. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 03:57:09PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Colin Watson wrote: Yes, and also it causes nasty problems with character sets. There's at least one bug filed, and I've been meaning to change it for a while now. True. Color me embarrassed for not checking the bug list before posting. (#131881, for reference) No, that's decoding of MIME messages in the CGI scripts, which is completely different. At the moment the only thing I can find is buried in the middle of #136654, so maybe it was actually only filed in my brain (which has no web interface) ... -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 03:58:44PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: attachment at the top than to scroll down to some random place near the end of a message (depending on how large the close message actually is), you should switch clients. ;-) Not everyone will be able to do that, of course. If people don't think users with problem mail clients are going to be that big a deal then I'd say go for it. -- You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever.
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Colin Watson wrote: so maybe it was actually only filed in my brain (which has no web interface) ... We need a bug system for developer's brains.
Re: Bug marked as done messages to-be-MIMEified?
I demand that Adam Heath may or may not have written... On Wed, 14 May 2003, Colin Watson wrote: so maybe it was actually only filed in my brain (which has no web interface) ... We need a bug system for developer's brains. Agreed... $ mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -s Misplacement of apostrophes Package: doogie developers' brains, surely. Cc: $ ;-) -- | Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | linux (or ds) at | woody, sarge, | Northumberland | youmustbejoking | RISC OS | Toon Army | demon co uk | We've got Shearer, you haven't The more general the title of a course, the less you learn from it.
