> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I do think some adjustments to the pipeline idea is in order,
>> along with splitting the two digest formats into two different
>> message sinks. The trick will be doing that efficiently, with
>> approachable configu
On Tuesday, October 15, 2002, at 08:35 AM, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
> I do think some adjustments to the pipeline idea is in order, along
> with splitting the two digest formats into two different message
> sinks. The trick will be doing that efficiently, with approachable
> configuration manage
> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CVR> Yup. they really serve different purposes. One's designed for
CVR> MIME, one isn't. So (now, long after it makes sense to think
CVR> of it for 2.1) making them separate processes now seems
CVR> to make sense. bu
> "JWB" == John W Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| And the archive represents a history of...
|which version of the list...
| non-digest, text digest, MIME digest???
JWB> Probably non-digest--except for a digest-only list--but
JWB> proving what was sent by r
>> Nope, because messages are processed for the two digests in the same
>> fell swoop. I don't think it's ever come up before that you might
>> want different processing for the different digests, but that /does/
>> make sense. ("Oh, TODO, please come here for a moment")
Yup. they really serve
At 17:25 -0400 10/14/2002, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:
>CVR> What I'd like to be able to do (but can't) is allow M/A,
>CVR> t/plain and t/html, and use the lynx to defang HTML going
>CVR> into the text (but not MIME) digests. That seems the most
>CVR> reasonable set of compromises to al
> "CVR" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CVR> I'm finding that if someone sends a M/A message with a plain
CVR> and an html part, it's getting processed, and I'm getting a
CVR> message going out with two t/p parts, one the original, and
CVR> one empty. Since th
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 09:25 AM, Michael Meltzer wrote:
> unless that was a typo, that 2 months old, you might want to grab the
> latest and greatest.
god, yes. I just wish it was a typo. I updated saturday night, then
installed the update and started tweaking...
> The black list I
>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] more 2.1b3++ MIME funnies.
>
> On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 09:00 AM, Michael Meltzer wrote:
>
> > thier was a fix in Mimedel.py about 1 week ago with
> > multipart/alternative that soulds pret
On Monday, October 14, 2002, at 09:00 AM, Michael Meltzer wrote:
> thier was a fix in Mimedel.py about 1 week ago with
> multipart/alternative that soulds pretty close to this bug,
> How old is the CVS update you are using?
>
8/12 -- saturday night...
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
[EMAIL
tober 13, 2002 3:40 PM
Subject: [Mailman-Developers] more 2.1b3++ MIME funnies.
>
> Okay, is this me, or mailman?
>
> I have content filtering on. My blacklist is empty. my whitelist is:
>
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain
> text/html
>
> I have conve
Okay, is this me, or mailman?
I have content filtering on. My blacklist is empty. my whitelist is:
multipart/alternative
text/plain
text/html
I have convert text/html to plain text on.
My lynx setup is:
> # Command that is used to convert text/html parts into plain text.
> This
> # should
12 matches
Mail list logo
