Michelle,
> Currently not possibel, because the script is on my server @home which
> I can not access trough the Internet and I work currently 600km far
> away.
Would've been neat, but I think you gave me enough pointers so far that
I can manage on my own for a bit. Thanks again for your time
n part? It seems I always get an improperly unwrapped
> version of the multipart/alternative part. And when you exit the
> editor, are you saying all MIME parts left unchanged?
I see the text/plain part only.
I can not edit the text/html part.
Ehm yes, I get all parts presented
ere might be subtleties.
> I do some things similary, BUT I use commandline tools, to create
> the multipart/alternative and then I move the complete file to
> the ~/Maildir/.Drafts/new/ folder, where mutt can find it if I
> recall a message.
I'm happy it seems to work for you, a
On 2017-01-25 07:55:05 Patrice Levesque hacked into the keyboard:
> - multipart/mixed
> - multipart/alternative
> - text/plain
> - multipart/related
>
Hi.
This subject has been discussed many times over the years, and I'm
having a go at it.
Because mutt's native support for multipart/alternative seems
insufficient for what I'm trying to achieve, I'm aiming to get this
flow:
1) Use mutt (write text/plain mail, set mail headers
* Simon Kirby on Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 17:16:53 -0700
> It seems a billion things lately send email such as:
>
> Content-type: multipart/alternative
>
> text/plain part: Your mailer sucks!
>
> text/html part: intended body
>
> rather than just leaving out
Hi!
It seems a billion things lately send email such as:
Content-type: multipart/alternative
text/plain part: Your mailer sucks!
text/html part: intended body
rather than just leaving out the useless text/plain part or sending a
useful text/plain version.
I can view them by selecting
a lot. Will try it and give feedback later ...
The group-alternatives binding for the componse menu (where you press 's'
to send) combines selected attachments into a multipart/alternative group.
The move-up and move-down bindings then allow you to change their order.
Sounds like its possible
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:18:31AM -0600, David Champion wrote:
I don't know offhand how you would generate the content. MIME is not
that hard to write if you know the structure, but I don't know a tool
off the top of my head that will generate it for you.
I would try maildrop's 'makemime'
Hi mutt users,
is it possible to create mulitpart/alternative message parts in the compose
screen?
I need to write text/html mails (please don't ask ...) as
multipart/alternative. My idea is to write markdown with vim and then convert
it to text/html and add it to the message. Currently I'm
binding for the componse menu (where you press
's' to send) combines selected attachments into a multipart/alternative
group. The move-up and move-down bindings then allow you to change
their order.
There exists some post send filter to achieve this but they do not work in
combination
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Saturday, July 18 at 02:41 PM, quoth lee:
Hmm, well, I guess I see your point, but not even mutt supports
batch-decoding like that. Do you perhaps have a perl script of some
kind that you use to bulk-decode like that?
Unfortunately not;
At Sun, 19 Jul 2009 04:50:05 +0100,
Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:37:04PM -0600, lee wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:51:05PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhere. But
At Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:54:15 -0500,
Kyle Wheeler wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Saturday, July 18 at 02:41 PM, quoth lee:
Hmm, well, I guess I see your point, but not even mutt supports
batch-decoding like that. Do you perhaps have a perl script of some
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:21:29AM -0600, lee wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:36:41PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
I guess in some general sense you are correct, but within the
context of a MUA, an attachment has a very specific and well defined
meaning, that is much more narrow than this.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 06:28:35PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
On Friday, July 17 at 03:58 PM, quoth lee:
Hm, somehow I've never had that problem. When reading the message, I
find out if something is attached.
You're lucky!
Yay! ;)
But every now and then, I still manage to miss an
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:20:49PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:21:29AM -0600, lee wrote:
Well, I'm not trying to mislead someone. Where is defined what an
attachment is for the context of a MUA, and who made the definition?
To the best of my knowledge, it isn't
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhere. But that doesn't
matter.
The common understanding of an attachment is that it is a file, with a
filename,
that has been sent as a separate item from the message.
Well, then
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:51:05PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhere. But that doesn't
matter.
The common understanding of an attachment is that it is a file, with a
filename,
that
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:37:04PM -0600, lee wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:51:05PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 03:37:32PM -0600, lee wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, it isn't defined anywhere. But that
doesn't matter.
The common understanding of an
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:37:04PM -0600, lee wrote:
I'm not sure what prescriptivist means. See Message-ID:
20090718204148.ga8...@cat.rubenette.is-a-geek.com,
there's an explanation why I could maintain saying that.
Sorry, you might have that. Here's the References: header
(which you
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:48:45AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
On Thursday, July 16 at 10:51 PM, quoth lee:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:16:57PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY attachments.
The person didn't send me any extra files to look at.
++ 16/07/09 09:03 -0500 - Kyle Wheeler:
Since mutt is set to prefer text/plain, all I see is the plain text
message, with no indication that there is an attachment (or even an
html part).
First, of course there's no obvious indication that there's an html
part. Why should there be? Unless
Hey,
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:16:57PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
I 1 no description[multipart/alternative]
I 2 |-no description [text/plain]
I 3 `-no description [text/html]
[...]
But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY attachments.
On Thu
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:36:41PM +0100, Noah Slater wrote:
I guess in some general sense you are correct, but within the
context of a MUA, an attachment has a very specific and well defined
meaning, that is much more narrow than this.
Well, I'm not trying to mislead someone. Where is defined
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:39:19AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
No, I mean that MIME components (aka entities) have meanings that
affect the interpretation of other MIME entities.
ok
I could appeal to something like Wikipedia (which says an email
attachment is a computer file which is sent
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:37:50AM -0500, David Champion wrote:
* On 17 Jul 2009, lee wrote:
Well, I'm not trying to mislead someone. Where is defined what an
attachment is for the context of a MUA, and who made the definition?
Content-Disposition's role is described in RFC 2183. But
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Friday, July 17 at 11:37 AM, quoth lee:
Mutt already supports this in that you can specify what things
should qualify as attachments and be counted. The problem is that
the counting doesn't work right.
Agreed!
What's the utility of your
presentation of the CONTENTS of the
multipart/alternative sub-entities, but I think it applies to
summaries of that content as well (i.e. attachment counts). In other
words, I think the suggestion here is to count attachments from only
ONE of the alternatives, not from all of the alternatives, because
MUAs should do.
Not that I know of... The closest I can find is RFC 1521, which says:
Actually, RFC 2046 is more recent, but says nearly the exact same
thing. It adds:
Systems should recognize that the content of the various parts [of
multipart/alternative sections
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:56:45PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
In other words, I think the suggestion here is to count attachments
from only ONE of the alternatives, not from all of the alternatives,
because to count attachments in ALL of the alternatives is
equivalent to being show multiple
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 02:04:15PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Actually, RFC 2046 is more recent, but says nearly the exact same
thing. It adds:
Systems should recognize that the content of the various parts [of
multipart/alternative sections] are interchangeable. Systems
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:38:04PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
For example, I often get emails from corporate secretaries that use
Outlook and some goofy HTML stationery (complete with background
picture, goofy fonts, corporate logo, etc.). Knowing that it's a
complex MIME structure isn't a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Friday, July 17 at 03:58 PM, quoth lee:
Hm, somehow I've never had that problem. When reading the message, I
find out if something is attached.
You're lucky! These days, I usually use the size as an indicator. A
message that's 10K or so is
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:31:26AM -0400, Tim Gray wrote:
On Wed 15, Jul'09 at 10:08 PM -0600, lee wrote:
And more general, is there a way to get an indication that a mail does
have an attachment or attachments? I would give them a different color
in the list; that would prevent me from
On Wed 15, Jul'09 at 11:59 PM -0600, lee wrote:
Hm, I was reading the manual, and there's an object attachment that
can be used with color. But I don't understand what that is for:
That colors the attachment in message display, like this:
[-- Attachment #1 --]
[-- Type: multipart/alternative
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wednesday, July 15 at 11:02 PM, quoth Tim Gray:
I have my alternative_order set to text/plain text/html.
So do I.
However I have some people who use a mailer (Apple Mail) that send
multipart/alternative messages with attachments.
How
). The same problem exists with pictures in GUI mailers:
they can display the picture, or treat it as a file, or both. This is
what RFC 2813 (the Content-Disposition header) is designed to help
with. And when multipart/alternative is involved... it gets nutty.
I 1 no description [multipa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 08:17 AM, quoth Tim Gray:
Playing around last night, I see if I set add 'multipart/related
multipart/mixed' to the front of my alternative order, it does pick
up these messages from Apple Mail and display them.
Huh!
On Thu 16, Jul'09 at 9:19 AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Here's a wacky message structure my mom sent me (using Apple Mail):
I 1 no description[multipa/alterna, 7bit, 653K]
I 2 |-no description [text/plain, utf-8, 2.0K]
I 3 `-no description [multipa/mixed,
On Thu 16, Jul'09 at 9:03 AM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
It depends on what you're going for. I recommend an attachment counter in
$pager_format.
I didn't realize this was there. I think that's what I was asking for.
Thanks.
I'll also start hitting them with some bug reports. I have an
algorithm has a flag that decides whether to traverse (recurse) the
container types while looking for attachments that qualify by your
attachments rules.
Multipart/alternative containers are specifically excluded from ever
being traversed. Why? Because mutt at this stage has no way of knowing
On Thu 16, Jul'09 at 10:49 AM -0500, David Champion wrote:
The best combination of efficiency and accuracy for this message would
have been:
multipart/mixed
- multipart/alternative
- multipart/mixed
- text/plain
- application/pdf (reference, no content)
`- text/plain
`- multipart/mixed
that qualify by your attachments rules.
Multipart/alternative containers are specifically excluded from ever
being traversed. Why? Because mutt at this stage has no way of knowing
which alternative in a multipart/alternative you want looked at.
Well, it's not an issue of which alternative
* On 16 Jul 2009, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Multipart/alternative containers are specifically excluded from ever
being traversed. Why? Because mutt at this stage has no way of knowing
which alternative in a multipart/alternative you want looked at.
Well, it's not an issue of which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 01:40 PM, quoth David Champion:
Thus, for attachment counting purposes, we can reasonably decide to
ALWAYS count *only* the attachments within the last alternative in
a multipart/alternative MIME section. That's the one
have nothing to do with whether it counts as an attachment. I think t
should counts as an attachment if a) I consider inlined PDFs to be
attachments and b) it is in the last component of the
multipart/alternative.
Hm, when it shouldn't matter for the count if an attachment is
displayed
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 02:23:40PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
Of course, like I said, I'm more worried about incorrectly saying
there are 0 attachments when there is in fact (at least) 1 than I am
with incorrectly saying there are 3 attachments when there are in fact
(depending on how you
that is
a multipart/alternative container with both a text/plain component
(that simply says Your reader cannot read HTML!) and a text/html
component, *very* few people would consider that message to have THREE
attachments, besides the fact that it has three MIME components.
If you have used the mail
composition in HTML (that includes Outlook,
Thunderbird, Apple Mail, and a whole host of others). When they send a
basic message to say Hi!, their client sends a message structured
like this:
I 1 no description[multipart/alternative]
I 2 |-no description [text/plain]
I
On Thu 16, Jul'09 at 10:16 PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY attachments. The
person didn't send me any extra files to look at. They sent me the same
message twice, one with extra formatting and one without. I don't think
most people would
have *semantics*
that are important.
You mean the difference between attachments and mime components is
only a semantical one?
For example, if someone sends me a message that is a
multipart/alternative container with both a text/plain component
(that simply says Your reader cannot read HTML
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:16:57PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY attachments.
The person didn't send me any extra files to look at. They sent me the
same message twice, one with extra formatting and one without. I don't
think most people
into multipart/alternative, the
multipart/alternative itself is an attachment which should be
counted:
I 1 no description[multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 4.2K]
I 2 no description [text/plain, quoted, iso-8859-1, 1.3K]
I 3 no description [text/html, quoted, iso
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Thursday, July 16 at 10:51 PM, quoth lee:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:16:57PM -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote:
But anyway, I don't consider this message to have ANY attachments.
The person didn't send me any extra files to look at. They sent me the
I have my alternative_order set to text/plain text/html. All works as
expected. However I have some people who use a mailer (Apple Mail) that
send multipart/alternative messages with attachments. So the two parts of
the message are a text/plain and a multipart/mixed. The multipart/mixed
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:02:38PM -0400, Tim Gray wrote:
So, what is the best way to deal with this? Is there anyway to just
prefer the text/plain but look for attachments in the text/html branch?
Or have an indication that there is a text/html branch onscreen so I know
to look there?
On Wed 15, Jul'09 at 10:08 PM -0600, lee wrote:
And more general, is there a way to get an indication that a mail does
have an attachment or attachments? I would give them a different color
in the list; that would prevent me from opening such messages without
checking them before.
You could
i'm on. multipart/alternative and when I
open if it's just full of stuff that looks very much like a pgp sig,
only *much* longer?
- --
Nick Wilson
Tel:+45 3325 0688
Fax:+45 3325 0677
Web:www.explodingnet.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Nick Wilson wrote:
Yeah. Thanks guys, reason I asked was that I've gotten a couple of odd
mails from one of the w3c lists i'm on. multipart/alternative and when I
open if it's just full of stuff that looks very much like a pgp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* and then JT blurted
Sounds like someone sent a part that got base-64 encoded. There should be
something like a filename or some information in the Content-headers for
that part which tell you something about it.
Yes, it was base-64
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Nick Wilson wrote:
'ello
What kind of monster is would a message containing multipart/alternative
be? Is there somewhere that gives idiots guides to mime types?
multipart alternative messages are those which have multiple
On 2002.01.23, in [EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Nick Wilson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 'ello
> What kind of monster is would a message containing multipart/alternative
> be? Is there somewhere that gives idiots guides to mime types?
It's a multipart type that provides m
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 09:21:25PM +0700, budsz wrote:
How can I make mutt able to display text/html attachments inline, WITHOUT
making it pick text/html (instead of text/plain) when the original message
was sent as multipart/alternative? I find the text/html versions to be
formatted worse
Philip --
...and then Philip Mak said...
%
% How can I make mutt able to display text/html attachments inline, WITHOUT
% making it pick text/html (instead of text/plain) when the original message
% was sent as multipart/alternative? I find the text/html versions to be
% formatted worse.
Look
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 04:23:36PM -0500, David T-G wrote:
| Philip --
|
| ...and then Philip Mak said...
| %
| % How can I make mutt able to display text/html attachments inline, WITHOUT
| % making it pick text/html (instead of text/plain) when the original message
| % was sent as multipart
* Nuno Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-01-06 22:06]:
Can I use the same config with w3m?
Yes, you can.
This is my mailcap entry:
#text/html; w3m %s; nametemplate=%s.html
text/html; w3m -dump %s; nametemplate=%s.html; copiousoutput
--
Eunjea [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
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.
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
* 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
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
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 21:00:21 -0700, Anton Graham wrote:
I still think that text/plain should be just that: plain :)
It is.
The Quoted Printable encoding must not have lines longer than 76
characters, and the encoder have to insert the soft breaks when
it encodes longer lines then that.
Byrial Jensen proclaimed on mutt-users that:
which each paragraph may be rewrapped by the receiving MUA. It
uses the context type "text/plain; format=flowed". Mutt doesn't
support this, but it may be a good idea to implement it.
"The Text/Plain Format Parameter" is described in RFC 2646.
The
There seems to be some "funkiness" in the handling of
multipart/alternative messages. In particular, the attachments
which are Content-Type: text/plain and Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable. These frequently come from Outlook (Express) users.
This is how mutt displays a s
Anton --
...and then Anton Graham said...
%
% There seems to be some "funkiness" in the handling of
% multipart/alternative messages. In particular, the attachments
% which are Content-Type: text/plain and Content-Transfer-Encoding:
% quoted-printable. These frequently come fr
that, and appreciate it when receiving preformatted
data as it shows me that the line is a continuation of the previous
without requiring me to scroll right through a 230 character line.
%
% # Force multipart/alternative to appropriate column widths
%:0
% * ^Content-Type.*multipart/alternative
Hello:
I'm getting multipart/alternative emails from friends/family, and the
default seems to be html, but the non-HTML version appears there in the
attachments menu. Is there a way to read the ASCII version by default in
Mutt so I don't have to spin up lynx?
Thanks,
-Clint
79 matches
Mail list logo
