Kevin wrote:
I chose only the .sh extension. Nmh picked the type and encoding.
The message was sent as:
Content-Type: application/x-sh
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Exchange left that alone.
I verified that Exchange doesn't mangle outgoing x-sh
attachments. But it (V6.5) does
On 29 August 2012 at 10:43, David Levine levin...@acm.org wrote:
Kevin wrote:
I chose only the .sh extension. Nmh picked the type and encoding.
The message was sent as:
Content-Type: application/x-sh
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Exchange left that alone.
I verified
On 29 August 2012 at 11:03, Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com wrote:
I verified that Exchange doesn't mangle outgoing x-sh
attachments. But it (V6.5) does mangle them when they're
incoming. How odd.
Even encoded as Base64? If that is the case, then that's damn unfriendly.
Until I found .sh
On 20 August 2012 at 14:04, David Levine levin...@acm.org wrote:
Kevin wrote:
[Ken:]
- Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work?
I already tried a variation on that. I gave it a fake .exe
extension, thinking that Exchange might look more favorably on
it. No
For me .bin failed. Whereas .sh works just fine. Yippee!!!
So, just for my curiosity ... what was the MIME type and
Content-Transfer-Encoding that you ended up using?
--Ken
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
On 28 August 2012 at 12:27, Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com wrote:
For me .bin failed. Whereas .sh works just fine. Yippee!!!
So, just for my curiosity ... what was the MIME type and
Content-Transfer-Encoding that you ended up using?
I chose only the .sh extension. Nmh picked the type and
On 20 August 2012 at 12:38, Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com wrote:
So, some suggestions for you, in no particular order.
- Maybe putting a Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit would help on your
attachents? Unfortunately we can't specify the CTE in nmh (but it's
something I always wanted to
The Exchange server alters uuencoded content by changing
text/plain into the MS version of quoted printable text, with
=3D in place of =, etc. That made shar files (shell scripts)
fail badly after transiting through that email path.
I was thinking that you really meant base 64 instead of
On 20 August 2012 at 12:38, Ken Hornstein k...@pobox.com wrote:
I was thinking that you really meant base 64 instead of uuencode
... until you mentioned shar files. My next thought was, People
still use shar files?!??!.
Should I send you a photo of me with my pet dinosaur? ;-)
What can I
- Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work?
If you want to do that via nmh-attachment ... from what I
remember it looks those up via suffixes that are listed via the
normal mhn mechanism (mhn.defaults). Hm, I see that files that
end in .sh will be sent via
Sending files as .exe is probably not the wisest way to work around things
either, as you wil fall afoul of virus heuristics. .bin seems to be the
more conventional way to approach this.
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
Kevin wrote:
[Ken:]
- Maybe a Content-Type of application/octet-stream would work?
I already tried a variation on that. I gave it a fake .exe
extension, thinking that Exchange might look more favorably on
it. No joy there.
I didn't have any luck with it either. Or with .bin or .sh.
Hi,
I have to deal with email going through an Exchange server on
a daily basis. A few months back that server started mangling
email my email message content. I'm trying to use nmh to craft my
emails such that Exchange won't mangle it.
SOME BACKGROUND (skip to QUESTION, if you wish)
The
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Cosgrove kev...@cosgroves.us wrote:
Is there a better way to use mhn to unpack the attachments,
converting DOS form back to UNIX form? I suppose I could write a
shell script to alter the files after mhn unpacks them.
It doesn't fix the actual problem,
On 16 August 2012 at 12:55, Howard Bampton howard.bamp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Kevin Cosgrove kev...@cosgroves.us wrote:
Is there a better way to use mhn to unpack the attachments,
converting DOS form back to UNIX form? I suppose I could write a
shell
Kevin wrote:
I'm trying to use nmh to craft my emails such that
Exchange won't mangle it.
Good luck with that :-/ I've given up, I've found Exchange
to be unpredictable.
Is there a better way to use mhn to unpack the
attachments, converting DOS form back to UNIX form? I
suppose I could
On 2012-08-16, at 17:38 PM, David Levine wrote:
I think that's the best way to handle it. Howard mentioned
dos2unix, which I use also.
tr -d \015
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:37:17 -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg said:
tr -d \015
Almost, but not quite correct.
Unfortunately, that will corrupt a file that happened to have a bare
carriage-return
character that wasn't part of a CR/LF pair. (Of course, having such a character
embedded in the middle of
On 2012-08-16, at 19:03 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Almost, but not quite correct.
Unfortunately, that will corrupt a file that happened to have a bare
carriage-return
character that wasn't part of a CR/LF pair. (Of course, having such a
character
embedded in the middle of a
19 matches
Mail list logo
