PLEASE use MIME Atttachments! (was: Re: [FIX] Comments for Set...)
ned at bike-nomad.com
Tue Apr 23 14:51:27 UTC 2002
On Monday 22 April 2002 06:52 pm, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> No, my mail user agent counts as 'decent' by any criterion I care
> about, and does _not_ support attachments. Be sure that I first of
> all tried using Celeste to send these things, but they vanished
> without trace. (
What mail client do you have that does not support MIME?
Celeste has been good the times I've used it (at least in 3.2); if you
could give more information on this, we could probably diagnose the
> Then it is time to fix the archiving tools.
> There are freely available versions of uudecode, and it's not
> _that_ hard a format to support.
uudecode is an increasingly obsolete format, and support in newer mail
clients is less certain. For instance, in Kmail I have to run
uuencoded messages through an external process to decode them, while
MIME attachments are handled very well.
UUencode also has a number of problems, and is more sensitive to
damage from non-ASCII mail gateways than MIME. And detecting actual
attachments is a bit tricky.
For more discussion on the various problems with the uuencode (non)
standard, see the MIME FAQ section 2.3:
For instance, how can we tell that lines that look like uudecode
headers, like this:
begin 644 Comments-raok.1.cs
MMM is this an attachment or not?
are actually not?
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE
More information about the Squeak-dev