earl wrote: > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Paul Fox wrote: > > > > If you specify a disposition of > > > attachment (which we do), you can't complain about gmail doing what you > > > told it. > > > > au contraire. i can certainly complain, which is what i did. and now > > we're talking about how to fix it. > > Since the disposition was "attachment", it is perfectly acceptable for > an MUA to require you to save to a file instead of displaying inline. > Otherwise, why even have a content-disposition header?
that's a great question. remember, i use mh as my mailer. with that as my baseline, you can see that i might not understand the detailed differences between dispositions, since mh pretty much treats them pretty much all the same: poorly. i assumed gmail would handle them well, and it turns out it doesn't. (there's no reason gmail couldn't offer to display many types of attachments.) i'm just a user. i used the most convenient method of forwarding an entire mail message that nmh provides -- the method that i've been encouraged to switch to over writing build directives, and i didn't get the results i expected. sounds like maybe someone else had a similar surprise with calendar programs, so i don't seem to be alone. > If your intent is, "display inline if you are able," then the > disposition should have been "inline.". One should not expect an MUA to > rendering an "attachment" disposition inline (an MUA may still do it, > but the sender should not expect it). pardon me for having higher expectations than i should have. paul > Any "fix" would be to have your message composed so the disposition is > "inline". I think something like Lyndon's proposal should work. =---------------------- paul fox, [email protected] (arlington, ma, where it's 58.3 degrees) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
