[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] Really dumb-sounding idea on attachments [not 1.6]

From: Ken Hornstein
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Really dumb-sounding idea on attachments [not 1.6]
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:47:14 -0400

>How about concatenating all Attach headers in order and treating the result
>as a mhbuild composition file?  Change the whatnow attach code to put the
>correct mhbuild stuff on an Attach header.
>This approach would preserve the ease of use of attach but easily make
>available all of the mhbuild options to those who want them.

I understand the desire for that approach, but I argued against it
when we were discussing it originally.  My feeling is that the common
case (you want to attach one or more files, at the end of a text part)
should be easy.  Putting the filename in an Attach header easy, and
feels like the "MH way" to me.  If people want to put their own Attach
header in there via the editor or some other thing, they can.  But an
mhbuild directive?  Yuck.  If you want to override it, you're free to
use an mhbuild directive in the body of your message.  Remember, I'm
speaking as someone who actually uses mhbuild directives to send out
message/external-body parts :-/

>Probably also need to make it so that the body is not treated as a mhbuild
>composition file if there are more than zero Attach headers.  And, treat
>the existence of Attach headers as an implicit auto-mime.

We effectively have that now.  The auto-mhbuild done by send(1) will
still process Attach headers, but not process directives in the body of
the message.


reply via email to

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