> Jon Steinhart wrote:
> >Fear of m_getfld has kept me from trying this.
>
> It's not that dreadful, is it? I grant you that it sticks its
> hands deep into the guts of the C library in a dreadfully unclean
> manner, but if you're just using it it's not too bad.
>
> Is there any consensus for rip
Jon Steinhart wrote:
>Fear of m_getfld has kept me from trying this.
It's not that dreadful, is it? I grant you that it sticks its
hands deep into the guts of the C library in a dreadfully unclean
manner, but if you're just using it it's not too bad.
Is there any consensus for ripping out the cod
Ken Hornstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Attachment-sending is done, checked in, and part of the last release.
> >
> >WHAT last release? Last I heard was that the 1.1 release was screwed up and
> >not officially put anywhere.
>
> It's sitting out there on savannah, you just have to look for
Hi Valdis,
> > mhstore and a little scripting gets me the first half, it's the
> > editing the email to change the embedded file into a reference
> > that's the issue.
>
> This *does* break horribly for digital signatures - I suspect that
> both an S/MIME and a PGP signature would be invalidated
Hi,
Ken wrote:
> > Is this 1.1RC3, or something different (such as "1.1 final")?
>
> Look at the download area (http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/nmh/); it
> should be obvious.
For the aid of those without ready Internet access whilst reading their
email the above URL has
nmh-1.1-RC3.tar
>Is this 1.1RC3, or something different (such as "1.1 final")?
Look at the download area (http://savannah.nongnu.org/download/nmh/); it
should be obvious.
--Ken
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nm
Ken Hornstein writes:
> >> Attachment-sending is done, checked in, and part of the last release.
> >
> >WHAT last release? Last I heard was that the 1.1 release was screwed up and
> >not officially put anywhere.
>
> It's sitting out there on savannah, you just have to look for it.
> "Screwed up"
>> Attachment-sending is done, checked in, and part of the last release.
>
>WHAT last release? Last I heard was that the 1.1 release was screwed up and
>not officially put anywhere.
It's sitting out there on savannah, you just have to look for it.
"Screwed up" is a matter of opinion; I felt it wa
Jon Steinhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attachment-sending is done, checked in, and part of the last release.
WHAT last release? Last I heard was that the 1.1 release was screwed up and
not officially put anywhere.
Scott
___
Nmh-workers mailing l
Arun writes:
> Hi, I'm just wondering how many people are working on improving
> attachment-sending in nmh. It's definitely an interest of mine, particularly
> sending named attachments, but I haven't done much nmh development yet, so
> I'm sure no one else knows of my interest.
Attachment-sendin
Jon Steinhart writes:
> Some of you may recall that after improving attachment-sending in nmh, I've
> had some wild ideas about how to improve attachment handling on the reading
> end. What I had been thinking about was to have scan listings report the
> components of multipart messages on separa
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:38:20 GMT, Ralph Corderoy said:
> Optionally, the extracted file may be better compressed along the way,
> e.g. an embedded tar file becomes a reference tar.bz2 file if it's
> smaller.
>
> mhstore and a little scripting gets me the first half, it's the editing
> the email t
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's a wishlist item. Not because I think there's someone with the
> time to work on it, but because I thought it worth making public;
> perhaps someone knows how to already do this.
>
> I keep lots of old emails. Some of those come with attachments, some
> large ones. MIME-enco
Hi,
Here's a wishlist item. Not because I think there's someone with the
time to work on it, but because I thought it worth making public;
perhaps someone knows how to already do this.
I keep lots of old emails. Some of those come with attachments, some
large ones. MIME-encoding isn't a space
14 matches
Mail list logo
