Re: [Nmh-workers] flattening continuation lines

[Oliver Kiddle]

Paul Fox wrote:

> in general, i agree, and it was my first reaction, after seeing
> that content-disposition has been on the mh todo list for a
> number of years.  in this particular case, the changes aren't for
> me -- they're for my wife, to use at work, where she's been
> burned in the past by using local copies of stuff that is also
> supplied by "IT", so i was trying to script the solution instead. 
> in any case, your patch is a lot simpler than what i would have
> come up with -- i probably would have duplicated much of the code
> that lets one insert Content-Description headers, in order to let
> the user specify Content-Disposition in a similar manner (with,
> perhaps { } delimeters in the draft file.

It would be good to have this working in the C code and it may not be
too hard. Has anyone got any good ideas on a syntax. Using { } isn't a
bad idea.

At a simple level we might have { attachment } and { inline } but what
should it do by default? And can we perhaps do something to avoid the
need to repeat the filename three times in this:

#text/plain; name="file.txt" { attachment; filename="file.txt" } /tmp/file.txt

I'd quite like to make it fairly intelligent by default. So:
  #text/plain /tmp/file.txt
would result in:
  Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="file.txt"
and you would need:
  #text/plain { } /tmp/file.txt
for no disposition header.

The name attribute in content-type is deprecated in rfc2046 by the way.
Content-Disposition is defined in rfc1806.

Oliver