[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] forw
From: |
norm |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] forw |
Date: |
Mon, 10 Oct 2016 05:24:51 -0700 |
Ken Hornstein <address@hidden> writes:
>>I don't recall when attachments first came into nmh, if I ever knew. But I
>>don't understand why the feature I talked about was not added to forw at that
>>time. Maybe it was because, for some reason I don't understand it is
>>difficult??
>
>Weeellll ... it depends what you mean by "attachments".
>
>The more modern 'attach' support is actually relatively recent. A form
>of it has been around in nmh for a while, but it really got standardized
>for 1.5 and improved for 1.6. In terms of display, we started to SLOWLY
>know about "attachments" and handling them better in terms of display
>only for 1.6.
>
>In MH proper, historically it could handle headers ('components' in
>MH-speak) very well. But the body of a message was treated as a single
>text blob. ONE command existed called mhn which could handle MIME
>messages; it displayed, listed, and composed them. Everything else
>was MIME-ignorant. This is when forw -mime was created; it created a
>mhn directive that it could use to compose the forwarded message.
>
>Along came nmh; mhn was split off into other utilities like mhshow,
>mhlist, mhbuild, and mhstore (this initial work was done by Richard
>Coleman). This was a slight improvement. But still, these are mostly
>the only utilities that can really parse a MIME message properly. If
>you're not using one of those utilities then your nmh command doesn't
>really know about MIME (there are a few exceptions for things like RFC
>2047 encoding).
>
>So, forw doesn't do what you expect it to do, because it never really
>knew about MIME. That's the fault of whomever wrote mhn; was that
>John Levine? I mean, I can't really fault him (or whomever it was)
>TOO much; as we're discovering, it's a huge job. Everything is going
>to need to be rototilled completely, new APIs are going to need to
>be designed ... ugh. We're going to have to grapple with a lot of
>changes. My eventual hope is that the internal interface to a message
>automatically will do MIME parsing and then all commands will do
>MIME parsing natively (see my "new MIME architecture" email for
>details). This would, for example, let 'pick' search through
>encoded text message bodies. Here are my thoughts on that regard:
>
>http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2014-07/msg00058.html
>http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2014-07/msg00185.html
>
>I hope this clears things up a bit. The short answer is: Unless you're
>using mhlist, mhstore, mhshow or mhbuild, your nmh command doesn't know
>about MIME.
Yes, it clears things up quite lot. Thank you very much. I now understand.
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/08
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, norm, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, norm, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, David Levine, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, norm, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Paul Vixie, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, norm, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw,
norm <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Paul Vixie, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Paul Vixie, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Paul Vixie, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Jon Steinhart, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Ken Hornstein, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2016/10/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] forw, Ralph Corderoy, 2016/10/10