Re: Sending multipart/alternative attachments
Gary Johnson wrote: Before this degenerates into a discussion of Why would you ever want to do that? and Mail should be text/plain: The reason I want this is that as secretary for an organization, I need to regularly distribute a form to the members. The form was written as a Word document, and I'm sure that most members would like it in that format, but I would like to also distribute a text/plain version. well in the compose screen, you can attach as many documents as you like, and they'll show up as MIME multipart. so compose your message, then exit the editor and hit 'a' to attach the first document, rinse, lather, repeat. that should do what you want, no? -- Experience -- a great teacher, but the tutition fees...
Re: Sending multipart/alternative attachments
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 11:21:00AM -0800, Will Yardley wrote: well in the compose screen, you can attach as many documents as you like, and they'll show up as MIME multipart. so compose your message, then exit the editor and hit 'a' to attach the first document, rinse, lather, repeat. that should do what you want, no? That will give me multiple attachments, which may be good enough, but I was hoping to use the alternative tag to allow each recipient's MUA to display only one version of the attachment, the one with the user's preferred Content-Type. I was also hoping this would cue the recipients that there really is only one form they need to fill out, without me having to spell it out in the cover letter. On the other hand, maybe giving them an explicit choice of formats would be better. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Spokane, Washington, USA http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ |
Re: Sending multipart/alternative attachments
Ooops, proof that that X-Uptime header's not entirely useless. Just noticed I had a locked-up proftpd process that's been there for the last 4 hours :) * Gary Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've RTFM and haven't seen a way for mutt to send (not display) multipart/alternative attachments. Is there an external program that can be used with mutt to do this? I was considering using an existing message as a template, but I thought I read where the boundary string has to be unique and I'd rather not have to guess at a unique sequence and edit the boundary manually. Besides, it would be much easier to have the attachments assembled automatically and after all, that's what computers are for. Have mutt generate the MIME stuff, then post-filter the message to alter the headers to make it mutlipart/alternative? It should be specified in an rfc anyway; good idea to read that if you can't have something else generate it for you. -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/
Re: Sending multipart/alternative attachments
* Gary Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On the other hand, maybe giving them an explicit choice of formats would be better. Personally I'd multipart/alternate the Word version so even if word breaks they can still read the message, and give a choice of not including the word version at signup. Same with HTML; I may well be able to read HTML messages, but if lynx breaks I'd still like to be able to read it, if only to find how to change it :) -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/
Re: Sending multipart/alternative attachments
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 08:02:03PM +, Thomas Hurst wrote: * Gary Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On the other hand, maybe giving them an explicit choice of formats would be better. Personally I'd multipart/alternate the Word version so even if word breaks they can still read the message, and give a choice of not including the word version at signup. Same with HTML; I may well be able to read HTML messages, but if lynx breaks I'd still like to be able to read it, if only to find how to change it :) What I meant was that maybe I should send the attachments to everyone as multipart/mixed so that they would see two attachments, form.doc and form.txt, and could decide when they respond which version they want to fill out. I would prefer not to keep track of which recipients prefer which version, but I suppose that really wouldn't be that much extra work. Gary -- Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Spokane, Washington, USA http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ |
