On Sat, Mar 06, 2004 at 05:30:41PM +0100, Frederic Olivie wrote: > I re-read that carefully, and, yes, there is a doc/code difference. I you > release a 2.64 (as you mentioned beeing a possibility in one of your > emails). This might need correction. Would you like me to input this as a > bug ?
At this point it's very unlikely that there'll be a 2.64 release, so I wouldn't bother with a bug about the 2.6x docs. > Should I review the whole code/doc ? ;-) Well, if you're offering ...! ;) > As far as I could see regarding this "full" vs/ "full w/o attachments" > concern, the code looks ok in the actual svn code. Yeah, in the 3.0 code, it's much more straight forward: body - fully decoded, html rendered, text|message parts. rawbody - fully decoded, text|message parts. full - absolute pristine body There's been some discussion about whether we actually should include the message parts. Seems like most MUAs, except Apple Mail so far, don't display message/* parts inline, so the thought is to have the code not deal with those either. There was another thought which was to parse all message/* parts into their own trees, but I think that's a bit overkill for what we're doing here... -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "I'm here with the two symbols of the republican party -- an elephant, and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change." - Peter Griffin, Family Guy
pgp1V8iMB0CCR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
