RE: mime and elm (was RE: X-wm question and ZipDrive)
> From: "Richard G. Roberto" <richr@Bear.COM>
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Casper BodenCummins wrote:
>
> > Hamish Moffat wrote:
> >
> > >>>Good. Any chance you could not send all messages as MIME, either?
> > >>>Real PITA to read with plain jane elm on a character terminal.
> > >>
> > >> Couldn't you pre-filter your email with procmail and a MIME extraction
> > >> program? Maybe the packages mime-support (which `can be used to turn
> > >> virtually any mail reader program into a multimedia mail reader') or
> > >> mpack?
> > >
> > >I'd love to. But this machine is not a Debian box, it's my
> > >account at university running Solaris 5.5.1, and there's no procmail,
> > >or munpack, etc. Only metamail, which isn't very friendly.
> > >Unfortunately, I doubt my disk quota runs to a permanent copy of
> > >procmail, which sounds quite featureful and therefore probably
> > >quite large.
>
> My solaris version of procmail is only 249k. munpack and pine
> are also _very_ available for solaris.
>
> >
> > If you're using OpenWindows, the standard mail program `mailtool'
> > understands MIME. (Couldn't your admins install a system-wide copy of
> > procmail?)
>
> Which version of "mailtool" understands mime? I think only the
> CDE mailer does, but I may be wrong. In any case the solstice
> mail reader understands mime and talks imap4!
>
> >
> > >> After all, MIME is so well established and you're imposing the lowest
> > >> common denominator on us.
> > >
> > >True, but I see no advantage in sending absolutely plain text messages
> > >as MIME when some people (such as me) will complain. When attachments
> > are involved, I agree, MIME simplifies things significantly
> > >and metamail handles this adequately. Although I still use
> > >Netscape when I'm trying to send file attachments.
> >
> > I agree with you and Dale on this. I assumed we were talking about
> > uuencoding `attachments' instead of MIMEing them - having a
> > MIME-compliant mailer, I'm not aware of the extent of the problem.
>
> MIME's base64 encoding method is _much_ more reliable than
> uuencoding. If text is being sent, it doesn't get encoded by a
> mime mailer so I don't see what the problem is. If I type on my
> solaris box: "more /var/mail/richr" I can see the raw stream and
> the text is not encoded. Sometimes I do see a funky header
> though. Is this header what's confusing elm? Why don't you just
> put pine on the darned thing? MIME is one of those "good ideas"
> that got ignored long enough that it gained credibility and
> finally is making it into main stream usage. It would be a good
> thing to try to accomidate it.
>
> Just my $.02
>
> Richard G. Roberto
> richr@bear.com
> 011-81-3-3437-7967 - Tokyo, Japan
>
Some of us are not using the us-ascii encoding. In my case I need the full
latin-1. This means, of course, that there will be a mime-encoding header
ever for "plain" text. The bottom line is that if you need other characters
(most non english speaking members of this list, I would assume) you do create
a mime header with your messages. Just imagine what it would be like to have
to write messages with some characters missing...
Hope this helps!
Luis.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: