[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] whatnow: can't attach because no header field name was

From: Ronald F. Guilmette
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] whatnow: can't attach because no header field name was given.
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 16:35:14 -0700

In message <address@hidden>, 
Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> wrote:

>>Is the attach command of whatnow making no attempt whatsoever to try
>>to determine the correct MIME content type specification?  Is every
>>attachment just going to be sent as "application/octet-stream"?
>Dude, you make it seem like using application/octet-stream is an
>injustice on par with the imprisonment of Alfred Dreyfus or an
>Acadmey Award being given to Marisa Tomei.

Marisa Tomei is a fine actress.

>I don't think it's
>unreasonable to use if nmh doesn't know how to handle a content type.

I don't think that I used the word "unreasonable".  The most applicable
adjective might be "sub-optimal".

>The send(1) man page explains how nmh can be configured to map
>particular suffixes to MIME content types when using atttach...

We must be reading two different man pages, you and I.

The only portion of the one I have here that seems at all relevant is this:

       For  file names with dot suffixes, the context is scanned for a mhshow-
       suffix- entry for that suffix.  The content-type for the part is  taken
       from  that  context entry if a match is found.  If no match is found or
       the file does not have a dot suffix, the content-type is text/plain  if
       the  file contains only ASCII characters or application/octet-stream if
       it contains characters outside of the ASCII range.

I am reading this and immediately asking myself: "Context?  What context?"

In short, if anybody wants to call me ignorant, then that's OK with me.
I plead guilty.  But I really have no idea what is being referred to here
when the term ``context'' is mentioned.  (It would have been helpful if
the terminology used here had been defined somewhere within this same man
page, but oh well.)

Anyway, even setting that issue aside for a moment, I'm still not seeing
anything in this man page that tells me where to go or what to do if I'd
like NHM to Do The Right Thing for various possible attachment types.
Could you please elaborate for my edification?  If it is easily possible
to make this work right, then I'd like to take a whack at it.

>Should nmh have some better defaults?  Probably.  In fact ... I forget
>we have mhn.defaults.  I could populate that with a few more things
>(in fact, our defaults are kinda cruddy, now that I look at them).
>But you can fix this yourself in your .mh_profile for at least some
>common types.

OK.  How?

I'm all ears.

reply via email to

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