[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ really non-

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ really non-ASCII message bodies ]
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:48:44 -0500

>The existing code takes a non-ASCII message body and sends it as an attachment
>of type application/octet-stream.
>Your patch changes this behavior so that it is sent as type text/plain with the
>appropriately chosen character set.

You know .... I'm all for backwards compatibility and everything, but
I'm wondering ... did the previous behavior actually make sense?  Can
people argue that it was desirable or correct?  Or was the previous
behavior actually wrong, and this is really fixing a long-standing
bug?  Because if we decide that the previous behavior is a bug, then
I don't think an explicit enable option for this chance makes sense; I'd
prefer that the new behavior be the default.

(I am personally on the fence regarding whether or not the previous
behavior is a bug).


reply via email to

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