Oliver wrote:
These are definitely just wrong -- we shouldn't be specifying
name and x-unix-mode for the body text
Yes, that's badly wrong. I've never used -attach, one of the reasons being
that I didn't like it including x-unix-mode. Another thing that bothered
me was that I couldn't get it to apply the attachments but defer sending
so that I could run list to see the results.
I quickly got used to that. alist lists the attachments. list shows
them, ordered, in the headers.
Adding -attachformat 1 to the send entry of your .mh_profile
will get rid of the name and x-unix-mode. That option can
The name is useful for actual attachments although we should really be
using Content-Disposition for that.
We do, almost, with -attachformat 1. We include filename in the
Content-Disposition of an attachment. We also include name in the
Content-Type. That seems to be common (mis-)usage. And see below
about mhstore using the Content-Type name.
Here's an example with a plain text attachment, using -attachformat 1:
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is the body of my message;
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
Content-Type: text/plain; name="attachment.txt"; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="attachment.txt"
Here are the contents of my text attachment.
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0--
For the body, I can't understand why anyone would want either name
or x-unix-mode.
mhstore ignores Content-Disposition. If there's no name in
Content-Type, it generates a name based on the message
number.
David
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers