On October 10, 2003 01:48 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But if mailman can't do it, there would still be other ways to > > organise this, only they would be uglier and trickier. Do we actually > > know yet if someone at winehq will "let this happen"? And likewise, > > would Alexandre (as the primary target of wine-patches) like to > > express any thoughts on this? :-) > > Personally I'd love to have a filter to make things more uniform, > assuming it's robust enough to not cause more trouble than it > solves. But I have no idea what's involved to set this up on the mail > server so I'm not the one who can make it happen. > > For the format, I guess using a text/plain attachment (without any > quoted-unreadable crap of course) would be better since it's easier to > process on the user side; as long as the format is standardized it > should be easy to turn the attachment back to inline form, but doing > it the other way is harder.
I'm in[c]lined to agree :-) I assume the filter script could also be used client-side for those who wish to have the mails formatted differently. As you say attached->inlined is easier than inlined->attached, which raises the question as to what can be done when posts already have patches inlined. Probably nothing I guess. Shachar - what do you think? > Multiple patches in the same email are of > course a very bad idea, I'm not sure why you insist on being able to > do that, and I certainly don't see any reason to make the filter > support them. I'm not insisting on anything, just arguing against puritanism. I don't want to debate whether it's a good idea or not, and indeed I don't want my opinion (whatever it might be) to unduly influence the choices made. I think the filter should, however, process the widest category of inputs possible with the cleanest/most-standardised output(s) possible. Everything the filter doesn't handle needs to be passed through as is (requiring flags or prepended-text to alert readers that it wasn't processed) or bit-bucketed. Bouncing is IMHO not something a mail list should do, for the spam/virus reasons I mentioned a couple of posts ago. As for what you recommend people send to the list, and what you or anyone else accepts, that's a different issue. But "wide-tolerance/thin-output" makes sense for the mail-processing pipeline, whatever the policies outside that might be. Cheers, Geoff -- Geoff Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.geoffthorpe.net/
