-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Bruno,
@4-Feb-2003, 09:06 -0500 (14:06 UK time) Bruno Fernandes [BF] in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: MDP>>>> Aha! You are talking about S/MIME! That's completely MDP>>>> different >> In which case you are talking about PGP/MIME. Either way, you're >> not talking about MIME, which TB handles perfectly BF> Umm, in all honesty, are you trying to split hairs or just BF> obfuscate the intentions of the original poster? Neither. I am trying to separate apples from pairs. BF> MIME is MIME. Yes. And MIME digests are *not* MIME. And S/MIME is *not* MIME. And PGP/MIME is *not* MIME. These three are implementations that employ MIME to achieve a specific end. They are not inferred by the topic "MIME". This is not pedantry nor is it hair splitting. BF> I don't think the focus should be on TB's ability to handle BF> certain MIME types, but rather its presentation of disposition. Not so. PGP/MIME is not S/MIME. Both employ MIME encoding to achieve an objective. Neither are simply "MIME". TB's MIME implementation is one thing. Its S/MIME implementation has only the letters M-I-M-E in common with MIME itself. Its PGP/MIME is non-existent - it doesn't support or handle it at all. This does not relate to MIME handling. None of these relate to MIME digest handling, which is a fourth separate issue. This is not hair splitting but very important differences between four very different and separate topics. "MIME" can refer to any of the four issues. You have chosen MIME digests as your soapbox. It seems that it was the original topic too. That was not clear in the least, especially when the second response included the word "Encryption" instead of "Encoding", which is what must have been intended by the later responses. This was not clear until much later. BF> And taste is all just a matter of taste to some degree. I wasn't discussing taste. I was trying to pinpoint exactly what the topic of conversation was. ... <snip> >> ... and TB handles MIME digests very well indeed. Open any one of >> the attached messages and TB opens a virtual folder containing >> *all* of them. BF> How is that handling "very well?" Maybe for you. I believe one BF> of the points made in the beginning was that TB treated all MIME BF> parts as attachments, even when they were not. Erm ... not true. A MIME part is *always* a MIME attachment. It has a header block and a separation from the body of the message. Some MUAs ignore this. TB doesn't. I like it that way (yes, a matter of tast for sure). Not all do, I accept that. But that wasn't my point. The question was vague. People were answering from all over the range of permutations of what context the word "MIME" might be being used in. ... <snip> BF> In the preview pane I'd like to see the whole digest for BF> instance, with each message separated by a visual marker of some BF> sort. I wouldn't. It's less easy to pick out a single message to reply to like that, unlike the virtual folder MIME digest that TB uses. If you want a message stream, don't subscribe to a MIME digest, get a plain text one <shrug>. This method would also break TB's preview paradigm where the body of the message is all that appears in the preview pane while other parts are shown as either tabs or as attachment icons. Any other method would need special consideration and would very likely add confusion - the preview pane suddenly shows something other than a message body? No thanks! BF> Look at Agent to see how this is handled very cleanly - it also BF> does the bursting. That gives people "choice" and is one of the BF> things that might prevent someone from claiming TB doesn't BF> support MIME. I recommend the response to this subject in the reply from Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. >> Until you open the digest, it is nothing but a carrier for the >> encapsulated messages. IMO TB behaves correctly here. BF> Well, any message is just a carrier for your encapsulated text, BF> isn't it? Yet your text appears in the preview pane, right? BF> Your comment makes it sound like the digest parts are somehow BF> encoded and not plain text. But they are encoded - as separate messages, each of which can be separately replied to and handled if wanted. The text that appears in the preview pane is the message body. Always. Nothing else appears in the preview pane. I say don't let anything else in there .. it will only confuse. Maybe Stef can come up with something that will satisfy - who knows? I can't think of something that fits the TB methodology. That doesn't mean it can't be done I suppose. I don't think I'd like it though. BF> TB could just as easily show all the messages within the preview BF> pane one after the other (along with showing them on the left BF> which I like as well - even though manipulation of those BF> messages is completely non-standard (try dragging one into BF> another folder). TB doesn't support dragging attachments into itself. You can drag the messages from the message list in the digest virtual folder though. Have you tried it? Works brilliantly. BF> As I have been finding around both this list and TBBETA lately, BF> so much comes down to semantics. Not really. Not in this case. BF> It's nice to educate someone on the use of the program and point BF> out ways to get around problems. Yes, but that's *exactly* the purpose of this list. Did you read the mission statement? ,-----=[ TBUDL's purpose ]=-----< The TBUDL list has been set up for the purpose of discussing The Bat! and how to use it. It is a community of users ready and able to help new users get to grips with some of the capabilities of this flexible email client. More complex issues are discussed on the TBTECH list (see below for details). `----------------| BF> but, if the program genuinely has a weakness, let's point it out BF> for what it is and not try to hide these facts. That obfuscates the purpose of this mailing list. It is merely rhetoric and helps nobody. The developers, the only folks who can do anything about it, don't participate here. TBBETA and the RITLabs BugTraq wishlist is the forum for discussing ways to improve TB and TBOT is the place to rant about how useless it is from a personal viewpoint <g>. Here, we explain how to get the best out of what there is. BF> There's plenty of room for improvement with TB. If there wasn't BF> then there would be no need for newer versions (in any stream, BF> including 2.0+) Quite right, and the best place to talk about such things is TBBETA. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/5 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195 Service Pack 2 ' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1rc1-nr1 (Windows 2000) iD8DBQE+P9S7OeQkq5KdzaARAkacAJ45sU5I0D6AyLY53jDcLv98HNM9QwCeNPGv cHmpLMeOQ/ZaFhTm/kGuRbg= =V/tM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
