On October 10, 2003 01:48 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Geoff Thorpe geoff@geoffthorpe.net 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