Re: ATTN: Barbara Oncay
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> On Apr 14, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> >Doofus wrote:
> >>Since one of the points of this thread seems to be to highlight the
> >>incidences of people blithely advising "do as it says at the
> >>bottom of
> >>the post" to other people who evidently can't see anything at the
> >>bottom
> >>of the post, then to argue "oh yes it is there as long as you know
> >>which
> >>spells and incantations to cast in order to see it" seems to me to be
> >>unfairly bogging down the novice with unhelpful pedantics.
> >>Especially
> >>when the kind of person incapable of unsubscribing from a mailing
> >>list
> >>is unlikely to even know what you're talking about when you tell
> >>them to
> >>view the raw message.
> >
> > Point is that there is a different condition between it being
> >there and
> >the client failing to show it. How? Because if it wasn't there
> >*NO* client
> >would show it. Just because one, or a few, clients don't show it
> >doesn't mean
> >all don't show it. It's called being precise in reporting problems.
> >
> >--
> > Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink,
> >I'm your
> > PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard
> >of souls.
> >-------------------------------
> >+---------------------------------------------
> I'm using a different reader altogether and I sometimes see the
> unsubscribe annotation and sometimes I don't.
> The difference correlates perfectly with whether the message is
> multipart mime(rfc1341), or not.--it does not appear whenever the
> sender mails a multi-part message. For example you _WON'T_ see it
> with Steve's messages as illustrated above; you _WILL_ see it with
> this message (I hope).
>
> Taking a brief look at the specs, but not enough to grok them:
> I suspect that the problem is that the notice is tacked on _after_
> the attachments---essentially turning the notice into an "epilog''
> <i> without a content-type</i> rather than either:
> (a) placing it within the first text part; or
> (b) attaching it as a well-formed part.
>
> Since it's an ill-formed part, it's properly ignored.
Aha! I've been wondering how spammers manage to send me 1354-line
messages although only 10 lines aver show up in mutt. Could this be the
same mechanism, inadvertently?
-- hendrik
Reply to: