Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach

[Paul Fox]

david wrote:
 > Ken wrote:
 > 
 > > Can the people who want to have "attach" append mhbuild directives
 > > explain what their thinking is, specifically why they think their
 > > approach is preferrable?  I went back and looked at the thread very
 > > carefully, and none of the proponents of this approach really covered
 > > why they thought this was better.
 > 
 > To me, the big advantage was simplifying that decision
 > logic that you presented.  It just seems more complex
 > than necessary.
 > 
 > The ability to review/edit mhbuild output is a bonus,
 > but not a primary goal for me.  Another bonus would be
 > to move error checking up:  instead of send(1) tripping
 > over a nonexistant file, whatnow(1) would.  That's not of
 > much value to me because I always ls before attach'ing,
 > so again it minor to me.

that's an interesting point, and i just realized that it's one reason
i've never been comfortable with attach.  my editor supports enough
filename completion that when inserting the mhbuild directive (via a
helper script), i can be sure that the filename is spelled correctly
and exists.  i don't get that early error detection service at the
whatnow prompt.

 > 
 > I have no problem putting parameters in pseudo-headers
 > rather than directives in the body, if that's where
 > you're headed.

i'm fine with that too -- i guess i'd fill the header from within the
editor, retaining the completion capability.

but playing with this just now, i've hit another issue with attach
(probably unrelated to the current thread, i guess).  how do i use
whatnow's attach to attach a file, like a mail message, with a
specific Content-Type?  i.e., if i use this:
    Nmh-Attachment: /home/pgf/Mail/inbox/2902
i get a Content-Type of text/plain rather than message/rfc822 (as
would have been supplied by a #forw mhbuild directive).

paul
----------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 19.6 degrees)