[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach
From: |
David Levine |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach |
Date: |
Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:43:55 -0500 |
Ken wrote:
> Well, let me make this alternate proposal:
>
> - "attach" adds Nmh-Attachment headers as per usual. Maybe we'll add
> something like: "attaching foo.pdf to message as application/pdf" so
> the user can see what MIME type is being used (really, that's all
> I care about).
>
> - You can add or not add mhbuild directives to the message if you want.
>
> - If you add mhbuild directives, you can run "mime" (also, you can run
> "mime" even if you don't). mhbuild will be in charge of processing
> Nmh-Attachment headers.
> - If you try to "attach" after a "mime", you get an error.
>
> - send runs "mhbuild -auto -nodirectives".
>
> How does that look? More code rework, but it feels better. Also,
> with this I think it actually accomplishes what you want (attach +
> inspection).
I like it.
One question: would it make sense to put the entire mhbuild
directive in the Nmh-Attachment header instead of just the
path? Users could then edit it as they wish.
David
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach, David Levine, 2013/12/07
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach, David Levine, 2013/12/11
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach, David Levine, 2013/12/11
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach,
David Levine <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach, David Levine, 2013/12/12
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach, David Levine, 2013/12/12
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach, David Levine, 2013/12/13
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach, David Levine, 2013/12/15
Re: [Nmh-workers] Conflict between "mime" command and attach, David Levine, 2013/12/15