> From: "Richard G. Roberto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]