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

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Jon,

> > No, sorry, when I said "edit" I was referring to a whatnow-entry to
> > put me back in vi so I can read-only peruse the outcome of "mime".
> > My intent is always to have "mime" do the work;  if something's not
> > right I go back to pre-"mime" and fix it because mhbuild could
> > always do want I want AIUI.
> 
> Do the big MUAs let you do this?  Can you look at post-MIME stuff in
> thunderbird?  Or do you just attach things and be happy with the
> results>

They do not.  But then I can only attach a file using their simplistic
GUI and hope they get everything they choose right, e.g. text/plain v.
message/rfc822, and miss out on the chance to specify the character
encoding or give a content description.  That's one reason why I don't
use them and prefer nmh.  (Though I don't think I can set the
content-disposition's modification-date?)

> >     mhb image/png \
> >         /home/foobar/junk/picture.png
> >     mhb forw +inbox 42 43 99
> 
> I can't support making a cryptic interface more cryptic.

s/#/mhb / seems *slightly* less cryptic to me.  :-)

> > A new mhbuild directive that guesses the MIME type could provide a
> > simple attach mechanism.  whatnow's "attach" could append these
> > instead of adding its header.  Or still add its header and they're
> > treated as if they were additional directives at the end of the body
> > in the order they're encountered.
> 
> This is why I suggested having some optional arguments on the attach
> header and attach command.

Sorry, to do what?  Memory's going.

Cheers, Ralph.