PLEASE use MIME Atttachments! (was: Re: [FIX] Comments for Set...)
Richard A. O'Keefe
ok at cs.otago.ac.nz
Sun Apr 28 23:59:48 UTC 2002
goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
And if you have made a contribution to Squeak, then you have Celeste
etc. And then you should be able to send a mail to the list using that.
Yes, I tried that, and as I said, IT DIDN'T WORK.
Now I am reasonably used to
- Squeak not working (but it does tend to leave behind helpful logs)
- mail systems not working (but I invariably get *some* kind of response
from the mail daemon to tell me something went wrong).
"mail to list" failed to work and did not say why.
Looking at the code, I see that "mail to list" sends the message
to "squeak at cs.uiuc.edu". I note that the originating address for
messages in this list used to be
squeak-request at cs.uiuc.edu
and is now
squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Could it be that "squeak at cs.uiuc.edu" is no longer a valid address?
Sure, you have some problem apparently so that it doesn't work but the
only thing you really need (to be able to do that AFAICT) is an SMTP
server. And you have specified your SMTP server, right? (just checking)
Ear sick horse. Mail sent from Netscape worked fine.
Let's kill this thread. I now have a copy of mpack and from today I shall
be using it to send my little contributions. Is it part of the
'community standard' that the attachment must be gzipped?
> Would it help if I provide a UUdecoder written in Squeak?
> (But no, I don't suppose _that_ will be accepted unless it's sent as
> an attachment.)
I guess that you implied a smiley there. ;-)
Is there such a thing as a groanie?
And in another posting you wrote:
> Fine. However, for distributing Squeak changesets we agreed on MIME
> attachments. It would be nice if you accepted this.
> Who's this "we"? _I_ never agreed to it.
Well, we have been doing it this way for a long time, there is a
toolchain setup that depends on it, it is documented on the Swiki etc.
It is fair to say that the community has "agreed" to do it this way. But
of course - we didn't specifically ask you about it... :-o
I deny that it is fair to say that the community has agreed at all.
Unless 'the community' means just the individuals who _were_ consulted,
in which case Squeak user and Squeak promoter though I may be, I am not
part of the Squeak community.
Had I had any part in the decision, I would have argued as strongly as
I could against attachments, on the grounds that
- they are not necessary,
- they are not supported by all mail user agents,
- they are notorious for insecurity.
But then, I'm the kind of troglodyte for prefers plain text messages
to Microsoft Word attachments...
I am of course perfectly willing to use whatever method *works*.
More information about the Squeak-dev