Re: [TCLUG:11699] Messages As Attachments [was Re: [TCLUG:11633]Ipaddresstimouts]

[Troy Johnson <john1536@tc.umn.edu>]

Thomas Veldhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Troy Johnson wrote:
> > I find this statement a bit distasteful. If OE5 handles multiparts
> > attachments in an annoying way, email Microsoft, don't try to convince
> > others to do things OE5's way (from Standard Subversion 101). On the
> > other hand, if Mutt signs things in a non-standard way, it needs to be
> > fixed and the developers of Mutt should be notified (it should at least
> > be an option). We should work together to make sure communication is
> > smooth and easy, and most of that is making sure the tools we use
> > conform to specifications (or standards).
> I didn't say say to do it OE5's way - my point was that OE5 is a new email
> client and many people on this list use it to read email.  There are many
> advocates on this list that feel multipart attachments used in this way
> quite annoying.  They have been consistantly shot down - hence my more
> forceful manner on this subject.  I have not seen any real advocates of
> the multipart GPGP attachments on this list so far (although I am sure
> they will speak up now).  I am just asking for courtesy.  I don't want to
> use procmail to fix the problem (filter all signed messages), because like
> I said, I will be missing interesting opinions.

Your "asking for courtesy" is essentially asking for "others to do
things OE5's way" from my perspective. Just because a client is new
doesn't mean it isn't broken in some way. If it doesn't have an option
to automatically view what is obviously a text attachment, then this new
client isn't all it's cracked up to be.