Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ reallynon-ASCII message bodies ]

[David Levine]

Oliver wrote:

> > > These are definitely just wrong -- we shouldn't be specifying
> > > name and x-unix-mode for the body text
> 
> Yes, that's badly wrong. I've never used -attach, one of the reasons being
> that I didn't like it including x-unix-mode. Another thing that bothered
> me was that I couldn't get it to apply the attachments but defer sending
> so that I could run list to see the results.

I quickly got used to that.  alist lists the attachments.  list shows
them, ordered, in the headers.

> > Adding -attachformat 1 to the send entry of your .mh_profile
> > will get rid of the name and x-unix-mode.  That option can
> 
> The name is useful for actual attachments although we should really be
> using Content-Disposition for that.

We do, almost, with -attachformat 1.  We include filename in the
Content-Disposition of an attachment.  We also include name in the
Content-Type.  That seems to be common (mis-)usage.  And see below
about mhstore using the Content-Type name.

Here's an example with a plain text attachment, using -attachformat 1:

  ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

  This is the body of my message;

  ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
  Content-Type: text/plain; name="attachment.txt"; charset="us-ascii"
  Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="attachment.txt"

  Here are the contents of my text attachment.

  ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0--

> For the body, I can't understand why anyone would want either name
> or x-unix-mode.

mhstore ignores Content-Disposition.  If there's no name in
Content-Type, it generates a name based on the message
number.

David


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________