[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach

From: David Levine
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 14:47:37 -0500

Jon wrote:

> So my opinion is to live with it for now.  If you're happy with
> attach, then use it.  If you want to use mhbuild, go ahead.  Just
> don't use both.  Save your energy for a coding effort with a greater
> value proposition.

The movtivation behind all this is to always produce MIME
messages.  An easy (well, not quite) way would be for post(8) to
run mhbuild on every message.

The way things are now, we have four cases for the draft message
by the time it reaches post:

1) the user had already run mhbuild, such as via whatnow's mime

2) send(1) had already run mhbuild to actually attach what the
   user requested via whatnow's attach

3) the user had otherwise inserted MIME-Version and Content-Type

4) the draft is not formatted as MIME

1), 2), and 3) could be easily handled by -auto (or whatever
it's called): it turns mhbuild into a no-op.  That would be

For 4), the draft can't be blindly run through mhbuild because
it might contain things that look like directives but aren't.
That would be solved by mhbuild -nodirectives.

Conceptually (or even actually), we could just leave send's
handling of Nmh-Attachments as-is, and just concentrate on 4).

Or to look at it another way, send's handling of
Nmh-Attachment headers already implements the effect of
-nodirectives.  But that really should be moved into

The lockouts really are orthogonal.  Though not difficult to
implement.  But maybe they should be comittted separately.


reply via email to

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