Obviously this issue has been resolved (I think) but anyway, that "sick
horse" still seems to be twitching a bit, let's go get it...

"Richard A. O'Keefe" <ok at cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> Good point at the end,
> skip the rest if you aren't interested in the argument.
> 
> goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> 	> 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
> 	
> 	Eh. Where did you look? I just looked in my 3.2g image and I ended up
> 	in:
> 	
> 	ChangeSet>>buildMessageForMailOutWithUser:
> 	
> 	...and as far back as 9/27/2001 (#4385) it seems to be correct. Mind
> 	though I might be looking in the wrong place. The address is in my
> 	image: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> 	
> 	What update-level is your image?
> 	
> Squeak 3.0.1 of 2001.02.04, update 3552.

Yes, the list has moved after that so unfortunately that hardcoded
address is wrong.

> 	Sure could! In that case I guess that Squeak fired it away alright but
> 	you didn't get to see the bounce(?) 
> 	
> It was simpler and far more embarassing than that.  See bottom.
> 
> 	> Ear sick horse.  Mail sent from Netscape worked fine.
> 	
> 	What does "Ear sick horse" mean? I am not native english speaking so I
> 	didn't get that.
> 	
> "Ear sick horse" = "Yes of course".

Ok. :-)

> 	>  - they are not necessary,
> 	>  - they are not supported by all mail user agents,
> 	>  - they are notorious for insecurity.
> 	
> 	Just curious, how is uuencoding better than attachments then? It's not
> 	supported in all email clients AFAIK.
> 	
> The key point is that it doesn't _have_ to be.

Eh. You lost me there I think... Or, ok, you mean that we can always
copy/paste into Squeak and get a cs.gz that way? Yes, that's true. It
would perhaps add an extra step (for most people) to get that .cs.gz
down on disk but sure.

Honestly, my only point is that I want us to use ONE scheme. What
particular scheme that is doesn't really bother me.

> 	So you want us to change this?
> 
> Obviously not.  Why should I want to stop anybody doing anything that
> works for them?  What I was hoping for was a more generous attitude.

Ok, I misinterpreted you. I thought that you wanted either that we
should change over to another scheme or at least allow the use of both
schemes (or more). Changing the scheme would be alright for me, as long
as it is simple for most users. I am still against having multiple
schemes.

> For example, for someone who understands Celeste, it should be a simple
> task to write a filter that decodes a uuencoded message and fires it out
> again as a Celeste attachment.  Less than half the energy that has been

Sounds like a dandy feature.

> spent in stepping on me could have given us the best of both worlds.

Well, this list is a friendly place. I hope I didn't participate in any
"stepping".
Anyway, you were kindof "aggressive" IMHO so... ;-) Peace.

> 	> I am of course perfectly willing to use whatever method *works*.
> 	
> 	Well, you could have fooled me.
> 	
> But you say you read the bit where I said I had made repeated attempts
> to try the official way, with no success.  How could such statements
> possibly fool you into thinking I was not willing to use a working method?	

As I said earlier I might have misinterpreted you. You argumented quite
heatedly for allowing the use of uuencoding (If I am not mistaken) which
sounded to me that you where unwilling to use the method that the rest
of us use.

[SNIP]
> I propose the following change to Celeste.  For all I know, it may already
> have been made in Squeak 3.2, but if not, I hope someone will do it.
> 
> A "Mister Postman" window has two big buttons at the top,
> "send message" and "add attachment".  Change this to three:
> "send message later", "send message now", and "add attachment".
> "send message now" should open up an SMPT socket and send the
> message right away.


Sounds good.

regards, Göran