[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: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 15:28:25 -0400

>for me?  it's new-fangled, and i don't trust it.  ;-)

Geez Paul, we only had like a huge discussion about this back in
December :-/

>seriously, it's just not how i've been doing attachments for the last
>15 years.  my current mechanism [1] trivially lets me attach either
>files or MH messages (e.g.  "cur", or "+mh last") and i can insert
>them anywhere i want in my message.  Attach is limited (as far as i
>know) to pathnames, and its attachments are always placed at the end
>of the message.

That's true (although if you have a new-enough "file" command, it will
figure out that a particular file is, for example, a message/rfc822).

As we talked about in December, this is a simple mode of attaching
files; designed for what the average user is going to be doing, which is
creating MIME messages which looks like the ones created by nearly every
other MUA out there.  Now you're still free to write your own mhbuild
directives and do what you did before.

>up 'til now, i've used automimeproc=1, and i have a hook in my mh.edit
>script that warns me about leading '#' chars in my draft.  with 1.6
>i'll need to change my ways.  that may mean using Attach, but it will
>only be part of my solution.

It does occur to me that if your only beef is automimeproc is no longer
supported, then there is an easy workaround: create your own sendproc
that always runs mhbuild, and you should be where you were before.


reply via email to

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