Re: Bug#3253: Pine over-encodes files (came from Bug#932)
> On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>
> > It looks, from reading this, as if you've seriously confused MIME and
> > BASE64. Please tell me this isn't true...
> >
> > I can see why Pine might lead one to believe that MIME and BASE64 were
> > the same, given that it is so resistant to doing anything with MIME
> > without also BASE64ing everything in sight.
> >
> Well, Base64 IS the encoding scheme used by Mime, right?
Not really. MIME currently defines at least three encoding styles,
BASE64, Quoted-Printable, and unencoded. Base64 is AN encoding scheme
used by MIME.
>The confusion is
> over when an attachment (I read MIME here, right?) should Base64 encode a
> file to be attached.
MIME doesn't encode attachments per se, MIME ecapsulates whole mail
messages. When an attachment is made, MIME encapsulates the entire
message into a singe MIME message of type "multipart/mixed", which
allows for multiple, relatively independant, embedded MIME encapsulated
messages. From experience I have with my mailer, if I were to attach a
GIF file to this message (which I won't), the entire message would be a
"multipart/mixed" message, the first part of which would be
"text/plain", with no encoding (that you would be reading right now),
the second part would be "image/gif", BASE64 encoded, and the last part
would be "text/plain", unencoded, and would consist of my .signature
file (and would -not- be attached as a downloadable file).
> The way attachemnts
> The Pine developers say: Gee, they want this included as an attachment,
> they must need to protect it, so, let's encode it! If they didn't want it
> encoded they would just have inserted it into the message!
> There are, obviously, those in the group who object to this point of view
> by the developers.
> My primary advice is, if it hurts when you do that, then don't do that!
> Seriously, use control R unless you REALLY want Base64 encoding. Then and
> only then can you make it an attachment.
Sometimes there are times when that is also unacceptable. MIME allows
different parts of a multipart message to have different character
sets. Perhaps I want to discuss two text files, one in Hebrew (or with
embedded Hebrew characters), and one in Japanese (or with embedded
Japanese characters), with interspersed commentary on the two
selections in English (say I'm corresponding with a colleage,
discussing relevant linguistic or political issues). MIME allows me to
do that, WITHOUT Base64 encoding the two files in alternate
charactersets. (Although I will admit that my mailer doesn't display
ISO-2022-JP encoded text files properly. I can embed them, however).
>
> For those of you who can't deal with this solution, I can only say:
>
> You and the Pine Developers go to neutral corners, and only come out
> fighting after I have left the room. (I don't like religios wars)
>
Some of us have needs that were forseen (or at least dealt with reasonably) by the MIME designers that are ignored by Pine. Some assumptions made by the Pine developers (like all attached files are binary files, regardless of if they are or not) don't meet our needs.
For the most part, I have sat back and ignored the MIME flamewars because MY mailer (mostly) does the Right Thing with MIME.
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"She was infatuated with their male prostitutes, whose members were
like those of donkeys and whose seed came in floods like that of
stallions." -- Ezekiel 23:20
Reply to: