[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?

From: Jon Steinhart
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Should attachment header handling be in send?
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:10:21 -0800

> 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 wasn't assuming I'd be given CVS access, which is why I've been using
> that mechanism.

Well, sounds like I need to do something as admin but am not sure exactly
what.  Are you saying that you've submitted patches and that nobody's bothered
to apply them to the code?  If that's the case, it's probably because nobody
has had the time to look at 'em.  I have no problem with giving you CVS access.

> I probably didn't make clear why I thought the magic I described would
> be needed. Messages should be encpasulated in message/rfc822 parts, and
> I don't like the idea of mhbuild or anything else trying to figure out that
> a text file is in fact a message. So unless a second kind of header is
> introduced, it needs to be done based on filename. How would you do
> this?

OK, I think that I understand now.  You're right, this is somewhat ugly.
Here's a first crack at a solution.  Despite the earlier complaint about
using the file command, it correctly identifies mail messages.  So I
would be inclined to use it to set the content type.  Now, this doesn't
work real well with the current mhshow-suffix scheme since it's not a
suffix, so I would think about adding some other profile entries that
give the content type to use for particular file command results.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]