Dear Laslo On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Laslo Hunhold <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:17:25 +0100 > Silvan Jegen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Silvan, > >> I see, thanks! >> >> Still sounds to me like having patches as attachments just causes me >> to have to change my default configuration though. >> >> What is the advantage of attaching the patches instead of just sending >> them inline, I wonder. > > because not everyone uses Mutt. Having dedicated attachments is > consistent when you send multiple patches, makes it easier to save them > somewhere for people who use "normal" mail-clients (no offense against > mutt of course).
I am sure they work great with nmh too! :P > The most prominent reason I see though is that when people browse the > mailing list archives of suckless.org, it's pretty much impossible to > extract the patch files from the archived messages, however it is > trivial when they are attachments. That is a good point. I have actually been quite frustrated with not being able to download raw emails from mailing lists for a while now. I assume the common email archivers don't allow that because it would make it too easy to harvest email addresses? Not sure. Cheers, Silvan
