I have my alternative_order set to text/plain text/html. All works as
expected. However I have some people who use a mailer (Apple Mail) that
send multipart/alternative messages with attachments. So the two parts of
the message are a text/plain and a multipart/mixed. The multipart/mixed
con
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:02:38PM -0400, Tim Gray wrote:
> So, what is the best way to deal with this? Is there anyway to just
> prefer the text/plain but look for attachments in the text/html branch?
> Or have an indication that there is a text/html branch onscreen so I know
> to look there?
On Wed 15, Jul'09 at 10:08 PM -0600, lee wrote:
And more general, is there a way to get an indication that a mail does
have an attachment or attachments? I would give them a different color
in the list; that would prevent me from opening such messages without
checking them before.
You could set
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:31:26AM -0400, Tim Gray wrote:
> On Wed 15, Jul'09 at 10:08 PM -0600, lee wrote:
>> And more general, is there a way to get an indication that a mail does
>> have an attachment or attachments? I would give them a different color
>> in the list; that would prevent me from
On Wed 15, Jul'09 at 11:59 PM -0600, lee wrote:
Hm, I was reading the manual, and there's an object "attachment" that
can be used with "color". But I don't understand what that is for:
That colors the attachment in message display, like this:
[-- Attachment #1 --]
[-- Type: multipart/alternati
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wednesday, July 15 at 11:02 PM, quoth Tim Gray:
> I have my alternative_order set to text/plain text/html.
So do I.
> However I have some people who use a mailer (Apple Mail) that send
> multipart/alternative messages with attachments.
How biz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wednesday, July 15 at 11:59 PM, quoth lee:
>> You can also use the %X sequence in your index_format definition to
>> display the number of attachments in a message. However, I don't
>> think either of those methods pick up on inline attachments
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 08:17 AM, quoth Tim Gray:
> Playing around last night, I see if I set add 'multipart/related
> multipart/mixed' to the front of my alternative order, it does pick
> up these messages from Apple Mail and display them.
Huh! I
On Thu 16, Jul'09 at 9:19 AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Here's a wacky message structure my mom sent me (using Apple Mail):
I 1 [multipa/alterna, 7bit, 653K]
I 2 |-> [text/plain, utf-8, 2.0K]
I 3 `-> [multipa/mixed, 7bit, 651K]
I 4 |-> [text/html, quo
On Thu 16, Jul'09 at 9:03 AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
It depends on what you're going for. I recommend an attachment counter in
$pager_format.
I didn't realize this was there. I think that's what I was asking for.
Thanks.
I'll also start hitting them with some bug reports. I have an out
* On 16 Jul 2009, Tim Gray wrote:
> >
> >I 1 [multipa/alterna, 7bit, 653K]
> >I 2 |-> [text/plain, utf-8, 2.0K]
> >I 3 `-> [multipa/mixed, 7bit, 651K]
> >I 4 |-> [text/html, quoted, windows-1252, 3.0K]
> >I 5 |->Typeface Ideas.pdf [applica/pdf ..
On Thu 16, Jul'09 at 10:49 AM -0500, David Champion wrote:
The best combination of efficiency and accuracy for this message would
have been:
multipart/mixed
-> multipart/alternative
-> multipart/mixed
-> text/plain
-> application/pdf (reference, no content)
`-> text/plain
`-> multipart/mixe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 10:49 AM, quoth David Champion:
> The attachment-counting algorithm has a flag that decides whether to
> traverse (recurse) the container types while looking for attachments
* On 16 Jul 2009, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > Multipart/alternative containers are specifically excluded from ever
> > being traversed. Why? Because mutt at this stage has no way of knowing
> > which alternative in a multipart/alternative you want looked at.
>
> Well, it's not an issue of "wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 01:40 PM, quoth David Champion:
>> Thus, for attachment counting purposes, we can reasonably decide to
>> ALWAYS count *only* the attachments within the last alternative in
>> a multipart/alternative MIME section. That's the
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 09:19:14AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 15 at 11:59 PM, quoth lee:
> >> You can also use the %X sequence in your index_format definition to
> >> display the number of attachments in a message. However, I don't
> >> think either of those methods pick up
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 01:14:22PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> If you want to add a config option to allow it to count ALL
> alternatives, that's fine by me, but I think counting only the last
> alternative is perfectly reasonable and compliant.
Well, I think it depends on what the user of mut
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 02:23:40PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Of course, like I said, I'm more worried about incorrectly saying
> there are 0 attachments when there is in fact (at least) 1 than I am
> with incorrectly saying there are 3 attachments when there are in fact
> (depending on how y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 08:18 PM, quoth lee:
>> The definition of "attachment" is not as clear as you would think.
>> For example, we tend to think of MIME components whose type is
>> text/* as not being "attachments", but sometimes they can be (e.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 08:56 PM, quoth lee:
>On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 02:23:40PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>
>> Of course, like I said, I'm more worried about incorrectly saying
>> there are 0 attachments when there is in fact (at least) 1 than I am
On Thu 16, Jul'09 at 10:16 PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY "attachments". The
person didn't send me any extra files to look at. They sent me the same
message twice, one with extra formatting and one without. I don't think
most people would con
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:09:16PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16 at 08:18 PM, quoth lee:
> >
> > Yeah, but mutt already has a way of showing a list of attachments.
>
> Those aren't attachments, they're MIME components. There's a
> difference, at least in modern lingo. MIME com
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:16:57PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY "attachments".
> The person didn't send me any extra files to look at. They sent me the
> same message twice, one with extra formatting and one without. I don't
> think most peo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 10:27 PM, quoth lee:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:09:16PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 16 at 08:18 PM, quoth lee:
>>>
>>> Yeah, but mutt already has a way of showing a list of attachments.
>>
>> Those aren't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 10:51 PM, quoth lee:
>On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:16:57PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>
>> But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY "attachments".
>> The person didn't send me any extra files to look at. They sent m
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:48:45AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Thursday, July 16 at 10:51 PM, quoth lee:
> >On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:16:57PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> >
> >> But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY "attachments".
> >> The person didn't send me any extra files
++ 16/07/09 09:03 -0500 - Kyle Wheeler:
>> Since mutt is set to prefer text/plain, all I see is the plain text
>> message, with no indication that there is an attachment (or even an
>> html part).
>
>First, of course there's no obvious indication that there's an html
>part. Why should there be?
Hey,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:16:57PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> I 1 [multipart/alternative]
> I 2 |-> [text/plain]
> I 3 `-> [text/html]
[...]
> But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY "attachments".
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:51:44PM -0600,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:36:41PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> I guess in some general sense you are correct, but within the
> context of a MUA, an attachment has a very specific and well defined
> meaning, that is much more narrow than this.
Well, I'm not trying to mislead someone. Where is defin
* On 17 Jul 2009, lee wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not trying to mislead someone. Where is defined what an
> attachment is for the context of a MUA, and who made the definition?
Content-Disposition's role is described in RFC 2183. But "attachment"
is a very ambiguous term. There is no English analogue
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:39:19AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> No, I mean that MIME components (aka "entities") have meanings that
> affect the interpretation of other MIME entities.
ok
> I could appeal to something like Wikipedia (which says an email
> attachment "is a computer file which is
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:37:50AM -0500, David Champion wrote:
> * On 17 Jul 2009, lee wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'm not trying to mislead someone. Where is defined what an
> > attachment is for the context of a MUA, and who made the definition?
>
> Content-Disposition's role is described in RFC 218
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Friday, July 17 at 11:37 AM, quoth lee:
> Mutt already supports this in that you can specify what things
> should qualify as attachments and be counted. The problem is that
> the counting doesn't work right.
Agreed!
>> What's the utility of yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Friday, July 17 at 12:18 PM, quoth lee:
> Is there an RFC that defines how a MUA is supposed to deal with such
> multipart messages? RFC 2183 seems to (reasonably) say only a
> minimum about what MUAs should do.
Not that I know of... The closes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Friday, July 17 at 01:56 PM, quoth Kyle Wheeler:
>On Friday, July 17 at 12:18 PM, quoth lee:
>> Is there an RFC that defines how a MUA is supposed to deal with such
>> multipart messages? RFC 2183 seems to (reasonably) say only a
>> minimum abou
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> In other words, I think the suggestion here is to count attachments
> from only ONE of the alternatives, not from all of the alternatives,
> because to count attachments in ALL of the alternatives is
> equivalent to being show multipl
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:04:15PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> Actually, RFC 2046 is more recent, but says nearly the exact same
> thing. It adds:
>
> Systems should recognize that the content of the various parts [of
> multipart/alternative sections] are interchangeable. Systems
>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:38:04PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> For example, I often get emails from corporate secretaries that use
> Outlook and some goofy HTML stationery (complete with background
> picture, goofy fonts, corporate logo, etc.). Knowing that it's a
> complex MIME structure isn't a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Friday, July 17 at 03:58 PM, quoth lee:
> Hm, somehow I've never had that problem. When reading the message, I
> find out if something is attached.
You're lucky! These days, I usually use the size as an indicator. A
message that's 10K or so is
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:21:29AM -0600, lee wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:36:41PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> > I guess in some general sense you are correct, but within the
> > context of a MUA, an attachment has a very specific and well defined
> > meaning, that is much more narrow than t
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 06:28:35PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
> On Friday, July 17 at 03:58 PM, quoth lee:
> > Hm, somehow I've never had that problem. When reading the message, I
> > find out if something is attached.
>
> You're lucky!
Yay! ;)
> But every now and then, I still manage to miss a
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:20:49PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:21:29AM -0600, lee wrote:
> > Well, I'm not trying to mislead someone. Where is defined what an
> > attachment is for the context of a MUA, and who made the definition?
>
> To the best of my knowledge, it isn
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote:
> > To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhere. But that doesn't
> > matter.
> > The common understanding of an attachment is that it is a file, with a
> > filename,
> > that has been sent as a separate item from the message.
>
> We
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:51:05PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote:
> > > To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhere. But that doesn't
> > > matter.
> > > The common understanding of an attachment is that it is a file, with a
> > > filen
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:37:04PM -0600, lee wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:51:05PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote:
> > > > To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhere. But that
> > > > doesn't matter.
> > > > The common understan
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:37:04PM -0600, lee wrote:
> I'm not sure what "prescriptivist" means. See Message-ID:
> <20090718204148.ga8...@cat.rubenette.is-a-geek.com>,
> there's an explanation why I could maintain saying that.
Sorry, you might have that. Here's the References: header
(which you p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Saturday, July 18 at 02:41 PM, quoth lee:
>> Hmm, well, I guess I see your point, but not even mutt supports
>> batch-decoding like that. Do you perhaps have a perl script of some
>> kind that you use to bulk-decode like that?
>
> Unfortunately
At Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:50:05 +0100,
Noah Slater wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:37:04PM -0600, lee wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:51:05PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote:
> > > > > To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhe
At Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:54:15 -0500,
Kyle Wheeler wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Saturday, July 18 at 02:41 PM, quoth lee:
> >> Hmm, well, I guess I see your point, but not even mutt supports
> >> batch-decoding like that. Do you perhaps have a perl script of
49 matches
Mail list logo