On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:52 PM, David Levine wrote:
> Lyndon wrote:
>
>> I have added an OpenBSD 5.4 (amd64) buildbot slave to the mix.
>>
>> Their auto{conf,make}s require some environment variables be set to
>> pick which version of the tools to run under the hood. For now I
>> have wired a hac
Jon wrote:
> Ken writes:
> > >[David wrote:]
> > >It depends on priorities: I'd rather be able to customize
> > >an attachment than manually insert a simple Nmh-Attachment
> > >header (I think that's the option you mention). I've never
> > >done that.
> >
> > It's just that when I hear the word
>Actually, I sent out a ton of email on it. Starting on 8/13/00. I still
>have the emails if they were lost due to the change. For example:
I stand corrected! I did look in the archives on mhonarc.org (the most
complete copy I could find), but there's a gap between 1999-04 and
2002-06.
--Ken
Ken Hornstein writes:
> So, out of curiousity I went back and dug into these changes ... I see
> they were committed on August 19th, 2002. More than 11 years ago! The
> previous changes to that were all in July, and then a HUGE gap from
> those to March of 2001. That was also back during our tra
>As with my attach addition which is way more contentious now than it
>was when I implemented it, my proposal on side is compatible with the
>existing ui. It would look the same if you didn't turn on any of the
>"new" options. Could even leave mhlist et. al. in place for any who
>love 'em. It's
Paul Fox writes:
> jon wrote:
> > Ken Hornstein writes:
> > > >It depends on priorities: I'd rather be able to customize
> > > >an attachment than manually insert a simple Nmh-Attachment
> > > >header (I think that's the option you mention). I've never
> > > >done that.
> > >
> > > It's j
jon wrote:
> Ken Hornstein writes:
> > >It depends on priorities: I'd rather be able to customize
> > >an attachment than manually insert a simple Nmh-Attachment
> > >header (I think that's the option you mention). I've never
> > >done that.
> >
> > It's just that when I hear the word "cu
>+1 to jon's proposal below. but this is probably enmh (even newer mail
>handler), not nmh. because to support it we'll have to bite a
>long-avoided architectural bullet and put all of the logic in a callable
>library, of which the command line tools are wrappers around option
>parsing and the libr
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >It depends on priorities: I'd rather be able to customize
> >an attachment than manually insert a simple Nmh-Attachment
> >header (I think that's the option you mention). I've never
> >done that.
>
> It's just that when I hear the word "customize", I ask the question:
>
>[...]
>I wasn't suggesting that any of this be done now. I was suggesting a path to a
>better ui so that folks can bicker about it and eventually agree on something
>that we could work towards.
That's fair ... I was just looking at it from a "ok, these things you want,
how exactly could they be
>It depends on priorities: I'd rather be able to customize
>an attachment than manually insert a simple Nmh-Attachment
>header (I think that's the option you mention). I've never
>done that.
It's just that when I hear the word "customize", I ask the question:
"If you want to customize your MIME
Ken wrote:
> >One question: would it make sense to put the entire mhbuild
> >directive in the Nmh-Attachment header instead of just the
> >path? Users could then edit it as they wish.
>
> I feel the answer is "no". I would like to give users the option to
> add their own Nmh-Attachment headers
Paul F. wrote:
> mainly it's because attach removes attachment from the flow of
> composition -- i have to remember to attach _after_ i've written out
> my draft, which to me is the "ready to send" point. i forget to
> include the attachment often enough as it is -- i much prefer adding
> an atta
>One question: would it make sense to put the entire mhbuild
>directive in the Nmh-Attachment header instead of just the
>path? Users could then edit it as they wish.
I feel the answer is "no". I would like to give users the option to add
their own Nmh-Attachment headers; if that's just a filen
ralph wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> > The attach thing is interesting to me socially because even you
> > mhbuild-lovers are using attach
>
> Minor point: I don't use attach, never have, as I can't see the MIME
> that will be sent. :-)
i've never used it either. partly it's because i didn't kno
Lyndon wrote:
> I have added an OpenBSD 5.4 (amd64) buildbot slave to the mix.
>
> Their auto{conf,make}s require some environment variables be set to
> pick which version of the tools to run under the hood. For now I
> have wired a hack into autogen.sh, but a better solution is
> required.
Cool
Ken wrote:
> Well, let me make this alternate proposal:
>
> - "attach" adds Nmh-Attachment headers as per usual. Maybe we'll add
> something like: "attaching foo.pdf to message as application/pdf" so
> the user can see what MIME type is being used (really, that's all
> I care about).
>
>
Ralph Corderoy writes:
> Hi Jon,
>
> > The attach thing is interesting to me socially because even you
> > mhbuild-lovers are using attach
>
> Minor point: I don't use attach, never have, as I can't see the MIME
> that will be sent. :-)
>
> Cheers, Ralph.
I stand corrected.
_
Hi Jon,
> The attach thing is interesting to me socially because even you
> mhbuild-lovers are using attach
Minor point: I don't use attach, never have, as I can't see the MIME
that will be sent. :-)
Cheers, Ralph.
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-w
n...@dad.org writes:
> Jon Steinhart writes:
> >Ken Hornstein writes:
> >> >> I will note one thing: I discovered recently that mutt supports an
> >> >> "Attach" header, which does exactly what you'd expect it to do. So
> >> >> there
> >> >> is prior art here.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Ken
> >> >
> >> >
+1 to jon's proposal below. but this is probably enmh (even newer mail
handler), not nmh. because to support it we'll have to bite a
long-avoided architectural bullet and put all of the logic in a callable
library, of which the command line tools are wrappers around option
parsing and the librarie
Jon Steinhart writes:
>Ken Hornstein writes:
>> >> I will note one thing: I discovered recently that mutt supports an
>> >> "Attach" header, which does exactly what you'd expect it to do. So there
>> >> is prior art here.
>> >>
>> >> --Ken
>> >
>> >Humph! Have to check the logs, I thought that I
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >Whew! Now that that's out of the way, I'll stick my neck out on what I'd
> >like
> >to see...
> >
> >The worst part to me (since attach was added) in nmh is reading MIME
> >messages.
> >
> > o I'd like to eliminate mhlist, mhstore, and mhshow from the ui.
>
> I can kin
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >How does that look? More code rework, but it feels better. Also, with this
> >I think it actually accomplishes what you want (attach + inspection).
>
> One additional thing ... I'd like to get rid of the ability of specifing
> the header name and just go with Nmh-Attachm
>Whew! Now that that's out of the way, I'll stick my neck out on what I'd like
>to see...
>
>The worst part to me (since attach was added) in nmh is reading MIME messages.
>
> o I'd like to eliminate mhlist, mhstore, and mhshow from the ui.
I can kind of get behind some of that ... those are obv
I have added an OpenBSD 5.4 (amd64) buildbot slave to the mix.
Their auto{conf,make}s require some environment variables be set to pick which
version of the tools to run under the hood. For now I have wired a hack into
autogen.sh, but a better solution is required.
--lyndon
signature.asc
D
>How does that look? More code rework, but it feels better. Also, with this
>I think it actually accomplishes what you want (attach + inspection).
One additional thing ... I'd like to get rid of the ability of specifing
the header name and just go with Nmh-Attachment. I realize that's an
artifa
On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>> How about if `#' was configurable and could be multiple characters? And
>> that could further be overridden on a per-message basis by an
>> nmh-header?
>
> Hmm ... that just strikes me as too complicated. I mean, it just feels
> like the w
>You pointed out,
>http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2013-12/msg00038.html,
>the two paths, starting with mbuild-directives and attach-headers, take
>a long time to converge and interfere. "mime" runs mhbuild, job done.
>"attach" puts in the header which is seen late-on by post(8),
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >> I will note one thing: I discovered recently that mutt supports an
> >> "Attach" header, which does exactly what you'd expect it to do. So there
> >> is prior art here.
> >>
> >> --Ken
> >
> >Humph! Have to check the logs, I thought that I was the prior art. Humbug.
>
>> I will note one thing: I discovered recently that mutt supports an
>> "Attach" header, which does exactly what you'd expect it to do. So there
>> is prior art here.
>>
>> --Ken
>
>Humph! Have to check the logs, I thought that I was the prior art. Humbug.
My mistake; I believe you were first
31 matches
Mail list logo
