Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ reallynon-ASCII message bodies ]
Oliver wrote: > > > These are definitely just wrong -- we shouldn't be specifying > > > name and x-unix-mode for the body text > > Yes, that's badly wrong. I've never used -attach, one of the reasons being > that I didn't like it including x-unix-mode. Another thing that bothered > me was that I couldn't get it to apply the attachments but defer sending > so that I could run list to see the results. I quickly got used to that. alist lists the attachments. list shows them, ordered, in the headers. > > Adding -attachformat 1 to the send entry of your .mh_profile > > will get rid of the name and x-unix-mode. That option can > > The name is useful for actual attachments although we should really be > using Content-Disposition for that. We do, almost, with -attachformat 1. We include filename in the Content-Disposition of an attachment. We also include name in the Content-Type. That seems to be common (mis-)usage. And see below about mhstore using the Content-Type name. Here's an example with a plain text attachment, using -attachformat 1: --- =_aa0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" This is the body of my message; --- =_aa0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="attachment.txt"; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="attachment.txt" Here are the contents of my text attachment. --- =_aa0-- > For the body, I can't understand why anyone would want either name > or x-unix-mode. mhstore ignores Content-Disposition. If there's no name in Content-Type, it generates a name based on the message number. David __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ reallynon-ASCII message bodies ]
David Levine wrote: > > These are definitely just wrong -- we shouldn't be specifying > > name and x-unix-mode for the body text Yes, that's badly wrong. I've never used -attach, one of the reasons being that I didn't like it including x-unix-mode. Another thing that bothered me was that I couldn't get it to apply the attachments but defer sending so that I could run list to see the results. But I must admit that I like the idea of not having to remember to type mime when my e-mail contains attachments, or the odd umlaut or pound sign. > Adding -attachformat 1 to the send entry of your .mh_profile > will get rid of the name and x-unix-mode. That option can The name is useful for actual attachments although we should really be using Content-Disposition for that. For the body, I can't understand why anyone would want either name or x-unix-mode. Oliver ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ reallynon-ASCII message bodies ]
On 10-12-07 3:48 PM, Jon Steinhart wrote: This is the first that anybody has spoken up about this as far as I'm aware, so I was trying to protect backward compatibility. A lot of MTAs just accept the stuff, even though it violates the standards. The assumption was 'just treat it as 8859-1'. That sort of worked long ago, but not any more. Now that the whole email delivery chain has had to start dealing with character set encodings properly I've noticed a (very) slight increase in the number of sites that are rejecting un- and mis-encoded non-ASCII text. ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ reallynon-ASCII message bodies ]
If this is a bug that nobody has bothered with for years then by all means go ahead and fix it. This is the first that anybody has spoken up about this as far as I'm aware, so I was trying to protect backward compatibility. No need to do that for bugs though. Jon ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ reallynon-ASCII message bodies ]
Peter wrote: > markus schnalke wrote: > >The old code generates ... > > > >... for ASCII: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; name="sendKi9x7j"; x-unix-mode="0644"; > > charset="us-ascii" > > Content-ID: <4962.128958967...@argentina.foo> > > Content-Description: ASCII text > > > > foo > > > >... for non-ASCII (only if at least one attachment is present): > > > > Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="sendbRaV8T"; > > x-unix-mode="0644" > > Content-ID: <5209.128958999...@argentina.foo> > > Content-Description: UTF-8 Unicode text > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > > > d2l0aCBKb24 > > These are definitely just wrong -- we shouldn't be specifying > name and x-unix-mode for the body text Adding -attachformat 1 to the send entry of your .mh_profile will get rid of the name and x-unix-mode. That option can also be added when entering send at the whatnow prompt. The send man page has examples of what it produces. If there's consensus to make that the default, it would be an easy code and documentation change. (Yes, I'm volunteering to make the changes. But not to push for consensus :-) > (and base64ing when we could q-p is a bit unfriendly). Blackberries, and I think Droids, unnecessarily base64 text. But I do agree with you, nmh shouldn't. David __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ___ Nmh-workers mailing list Nmh-workers@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
