Re: [Nmh-workers] NMH Work-arounds for Exchange server mangling (OT???)

[Kevin Cosgrove]

On 20 August 2012 at 12:38, Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> wrote:

> I was thinking that you really meant "base 64" instead of uuencode
> ... until you mentioned shar files.  My next thought was, "People
> still use shar files?!??!".

Should I send you a photo of me with my pet dinosaur?  ;-)

What can I say, I used to run UUCP with sendmail and MH-3.  Then I 
got into the mindset of "if it's not broken, don't fix it".  Exchange 
just broke it after running just fine for 20 years.

> - Maybe putting a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit would help on
>   your attachments?  Unfortunately we can't specify the CTE in nmh
>   (but it's something I always wanted to add); you'd have to add
>   it to the draft manually.

Excellent idea.  I'll try that.  Given the quoted-printable
7/8-bit wars I've had with Exchange over the years, I'm
cautiously pessimistic about the outcome.

> - Maybe a Content-Disposition of inline would work?  You CAN
>   set that via mhbuild directives.

I'll try that too.  I'll have to have a look at the mhbuild
manual as I've never used mhbuild before.

> - Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work?
>   If you want to do that via nmh-attachment ... from what I
>   remember it looks those up via suffixes that are listed via the
>   normal mhn mechanism (mhn.defaults).  Hm, I see that files that
>   end in .sh will be sent via application/x-sh; maybe that would
>   work?

I already tried a variation on that.  I gave it a fake .exe
extension, thinking that Exchange might look more favorably on
it.  No joy there.

Thanks!

--
Kevin