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 marke
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 v
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.
>
> debbu
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
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 |
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 messa
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 p
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 checki
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.
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.
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 apost
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 hidd
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: do
"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)
> (Y
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
> > messa
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 defaul
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
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
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 perh
19 matches
Mail list logo
