[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Nmh-workers] semantics of mhshow -type and -part

From: Ralph Corderoy
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] semantics of mhshow -type and -part
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:44 +0000

Hi Paul,

> it seems to me that if you're in the mode of specifying parts by
> number, or by fully-qualified type, then you're long past caring about
> "the sender's ranking"

Maybe.  I might have a default of text/plain and text/rtf, so as to omit
image/* and omit text/html unless that's the only choice.  By default,
the sender's ranking may as well rule as per RFC.

> as an aside, i actually think "the sender's ranking" is a highly
> overrated, and possibly even obsolete concept these days, RFCs
> notwithstanding.
> i'm all for nmh doing the RFC-correct thing by default, but i also
> think we should be making it dead easy for the the recipient to make
> their own type/subtype rankings to override the sender's purported
> choice.

Agreed.  nmh needs some way for me to say text/plain trumps text/html,
overriding the sender's ordering.  Once I could state my own ranking for
multipart/alternative, then showing an email and ignoring all the images
would be just `-type text'.  Until then, I'm left listing the parts and
checking that `-type text/plain' will show me everything I want,
ditching the HTML alternative.  Or assuming that, and then looking
deeper if something seems to be missing.

Cheers, Ralph.

reply via email to

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