On 14Oct 1017, Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 07:00:34AM +0300, Cristopher Thomas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 18:30, Ed Blackman e...@edgewood.to wrote:
I'm wondering whether it's now appropriate to change this to default to
'yes'.
I'm not sure I understand you're
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:43:10AM +0300, Cristopher Thomas wrote:
On 14Oct 1017, Derek Martin wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 07:00:34AM +0300, Cristopher Thomas wrote:
I'm not sure I understand you're point.
What's not to understand?
[...]
You know, I think I misread Ed's post.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 07:00:34AM +0300, Cristopher Thomas wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 18:30, Ed Blackman e...@edgewood.to wrote:
I'm wondering whether it's now appropriate to change this to default to
'yes'.
I'm not sure I understand you're point.
What's not to understand? Ed is
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:35:15AM +0900, Dan Drake wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 at 10:41AM +0900, Dan Drake wrote:
I'm wondering if there's any way to get Mutt to decode the filenames of
attachments. Here's a bit from an attachment I received today:
Whoops...I just looked in the archives for
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 18:30, Ed Blackman e...@edgewood.to wrote:
I'm wondering whether it's now appropriate to change this to default to
'yes'. I understand the reason it isn't yes by default: RFC 2047 says
explicitly not to use RFC 2047 decoding on filename parameters. That is
because it
Hello,
I'm wondering if there's any way to get Mutt to decode the filenames of
attachments. Here's a bit from an attachment I received today:
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
name==?EUC-KR?B?MjAxMbq9ILCzvLOxs7D6uPEoRSkueGxz?=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 at 10:41AM +0900, Dan Drake wrote:
I'm wondering if there's any way to get Mutt to decode the filenames of
attachments. Here's a bit from an attachment I received today:
Whoops...I just looked in the archives for this list, and noticed that just
yesterday there was a message
