On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 05:41:38PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 11:14:43AM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen via Mutt-dev wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 04:45:48PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2026 at 08:46:52AM +0200, Rene Kita wrote:
I can't remember I ever saw that message, but I don't quite get it:
Attachment #2 modified. Update encoding for /tmp/f? ([yes]/no):
This is after an 'echo a >> /tmp/f'. Why "Update encoding"?
Mutt scans the attachment to determine whether to use 7-bit, 8-bit,
QP, or Base64 encoding. It wants to make sure the encoding is still
appropriate. This can also manually be edited via ^E
<edit-encoding> in the compose menu.
It also scans text types to determine the charset to be used.
but that's not what this is referring to.
it's asking whether to update the mime-encoded copy in the draft
message. it's an overly technical formulation.
The message/attachment is not encoded yet. It's scanning to determine
how it will be encoded when it's sent.
are you sure?
was this always the case?
i deduced the postulated behavior from the fact that postponed messages
do actually include an encoded copy.
this is consistent with a past bug where they were losing the links to
the original files, and things continued to mostly work.
it would be rather surprising if fresh drafts would behave this
differently from recalled ones.
I wonder what behaviour people would expect these days, when
attaching a file is it a link to the current version or a snapshot
of the file when it was attached?
the current behavior is just fine. i regularly trigger it by modifying
files after i already scheduled them for attaching. and while i
usually want to update the attachment, this isn't always the case.
Thanks for the confirmation that it's worked for you regularly.
well, if you are right, then it actually hasn't, and i unintentionally
sent updated files a few times.
there is some serious disconnect with reality in these paragraphs.
I'll charitably assume that was a lame attempt at humor on your part.
i'm actually not trying to be funny at all; i've noticed a long time ago
that this just doesn't work with you.
i originally had written "?!?", because things just didn't connect. i
may have to expand the scope of "these" to include my own paragraphs.
