Jon Steinhart wrote:
The attach command is convenient though. Perhaps if the -attach option
is not set in .mh_profile, attach could add an mhbuild directive to the
body.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that if some option
is not set in the profile, then the
Oliver wrote:
Currently, the attach command defaults to printing:
whatnow: can't attach because no header field name was given.
If a header field name is given it adds the filename to the header. What
I'm suggesting is that the default is to construct an mhbuild directive
- something like
How 'bout this? Why not add another option similar to the -attach
option that I added to whatnow and send? Why not add a -forward
option that would specify the name of another header that would be used
for forwarding messages. So, for example, if you had in your profile
repl:
Jon Steinhart wrote:
I feel the same way about having the attachment header containing full
mhbuild directives. Not sure what you get from that; if you want to
do mhbuild directives, do 'em in the body, it still works. The whole idea
The attach command is convenient though. Perhaps if the
Oliver wrote:
Jon Steinhart wrote:
I feel the same way about having the attachment header containing full
mhbuild directives. Not sure what you get from that; if you want to
do mhbuild directives, do 'em in the body, it still works. The whole idea
The attach command is convenient
| I don't see anything wrong with send doing the work. It's the only logic
al
| place for it, and in my opinion, is really no different than having it expa
nd
| aliases and such.
What if you build a draft, don't send it, and then delete the /tmp/foo.jpg
that you had attached? When you
Apologies for the length of this message. The proposal at the end is
simple, but I'm finding it difficult to give all my rationale for it.
Then why don't you feel the same way about mhbuild? My problem with
send handling attachment headers is that it's inconsistent with the use
of mhbuild.
Joel Reicher wrote:
The bug reports (with patches) that I've done over the past couple of
months are certainly there, but nobody's picking them up. I'm pretty sure
it's not a Savannah problem. There are reports (with patches) from other
people that go back a year or two.
I did go through the
Sorry if I'm about to rehash an old argument, but I'm only just now
coming to grips with Jon's 2002 attachment handling mods. I wasn't
even aware of them before.
Anyway, I'm worried that it is send handling the attachment
headers. There are reasons other than attaching files for building a
MIME
Anyway, I'm worried that it is send handling the attachment
headers. There are reasons other than attaching files for building a
MIME message, and mhbuild could be called before send. As far as I can
see, the attachment handling mods fail in this situation.
I don't see anything wrong
Sorry if I'm about to rehash an old argument, but I'm only just now
coming to grips with Jon's 2002 attachment handling mods. I wasn't
even aware of them before.
Nothing to rehash; when I proposed the attachment handling mods a while back
it was met with silence. There was no debate at the
Anyway, I'm worried that it is send handling the attachment
headers. There are reasons other than attaching files for building a
MIME message, and mhbuild could be called before send. As far as I can
see, the attachment handling mods fail in this situation.
I don't see anything
12 matches
Mail list logo
