attaching or inlining? what to do when you're stuck with a stupid mail client???

[Geoff Thorpe]

On October 9, 2003 08:46 am, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On October 9, 2003 08:11 am, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
> > As an alternative,  if welcome on the list, we can zip/bzip the
> > patch, this way they wont be mangled by Notes.
>
> No, this is most definitely not welcome on the list...

Couldn't the wine-patches list server simply pull the emails apart and 
reconstruct them according to some simple rules? I'm no Perl hacker, but 
I'm sure this could be stitched together easily by someone who is.

Eg. (a) prune out HTML emails, (b) prune out binary/executable 
attachments, and of course (c) identify common patch 
file-extensions/MIME-types/mistakes and correctly inline/attach them 
according to the preferred mechanics? This could be adapted and improved 
as/when new combinations of strange MUAs and strange users start to 
create difficulties - even Lotus Notes could be accommodated! <grin> 
Note, with this approach I think it would make sense to create a second 
mail alias that does the same checking but returns parsing results to the 
sender rather than forwarding to the list. Ie. people could use that to 
check things out if their patches aren't "getting through" without the 
regular list-server having to bounce mails (like a bad spam filter). Just 
my $0.02.

Cheers,
Geoff

-- 
Geoff Thorpe
geoff at geoffthorpe.net
http://www.geoffthorpe.net/