[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Nmh-workers] Re: Should attachment header handling be in send?
From: |
Bill Wohler |
Subject: |
[Nmh-workers] Re: Should attachment header handling be in send? |
Date: |
Sat, 04 Feb 2006 09:21:57 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Jon Steinhart <address@hidden> writes:
> OK, I think that I understand now. You're right, this is somewhat ugly.
> Here's a first crack at a solution. Despite the earlier complaint about
> using the file command, it correctly identifies mail messages. So I
> would be inclined to use it to set the content type. Now, this doesn't
> work real well with the current mhshow-suffix scheme since it's not a
> suffix, so I would think about adding some other profile entries that
> give the content type to use for particular file command results.
Since the file command doesn't always get it right, MH-E has code to
"fix" it. In particular Excel and Powerpoint files get tagged as
application/msword, Openoffice documents get tagged as
application/x-zip, and vCards get tagged as text/plain.
nmh should probably do something similar if it goes the file route.
My own personal feeling is to prefer the extension if it matches one
in /etc/mime.types and use the file command as a fallback rather than
vice-versa, but that isn't the consensus with the MH-E developers.
--
Bill Wohler <address@hidden> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD
Maintainer of comp.mail.mh FAQ and MH-E. Vote Libertarian!
If you're passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Nmh-workers] Re: Should attachment header handling be in send?,
Bill Wohler <=