Re: [Nmh-workers] Attach and disposition

[Paul Fox]

lyndon wrote:
 > > kind of by definition.  what client MUAs _do_ with those attachments
 > > is a question of semantics.  and what gmail did (i.e., nothing) surprised
 > > me.
 > 
 > RFC 2183 is unambigious:
 > 
 > 2.1  The Inline Disposition Type
 > 
 >     A bodypart should be marked `inline' if it is intended to be
 >     displayed automatically upon display of the message.  Inline
 >     bodyparts should be presented in the order in which they occur,
 >     subject to the normal semantics of multipart messages.
 > 
 > 2.2  The Attachment Disposition Type
 > 
 >     Bodyparts can be designated `attachment' to indicate that they are
 >     separate from the main body of the mail message, and that their
 >     display should not be automatic, but contingent upon some further
 >     action of the user.  The MUA might instead present the user of a

i never said i expected gmail to do something automatically.  i would
have been perfectly happy if it had asked me if i wanted to see the
attachment.  it's not too big a stretch that it might have -- it was
an *email* attachment, and it an *email* program.

 >     bitmap terminal with an iconic representation of the attachments, or,
 >     on character terminals, with a list of attachments from which the
 >     user could select for viewing or storage.
 > 
 > Well naturally an MUA can do what it bloody well pleases.  A well designed 
 > MUA will implement the intent of the underlying standards, in the 
 > interests of interoperability.  If MUAs ignore the disposition parameter, 
 > the functionality becomes useless.
 > 
 > > au contraire.  i can certainly complain, which is what i did.
 > 
 > You can complain, but it doesn't make you right.

i wasn't complaining about about gmail.  i was "complaining" about
nmh, by asking what we can do better.  again, my apologies.

paul
=----------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 58.3 degrees)