From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/54740 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Florian Weimer Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Disable mailcap support Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:35:37 +0100 Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Message-ID: <20031109153537.GA26934@deneb.enyo.de> References: <20030928161139.GA31465@deneb.enyo.de> <20030929180434.GA4835@deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1068388610 12999 80.91.224.253 (9 Nov 2003 14:36:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 14:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M3281@lists.math.uh.edu Sun Nov 09 15:36:48 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AIqgJ-00070e-00 for ; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 15:36:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AIqfQ-0006Of-00; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:35:52 -0600 Original-Received: from justine.libertine.org ([66.139.78.221]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1AIqfK-0006Oa-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 08:35:46 -0600 Original-Received: from cygnus-ext.enyo.de (cygnus-ext.enyo.de [212.9.189.162]) by justine.libertine.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90F883A0096 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2003 08:35:44 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AIqfK-0005RR-7Y; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 15:35:46 +0100 Original-Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.24) id 1AIrbF-0007TH-PZ; Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:35:37 +0100 Original-To: Jesper Harder Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Precedence: bulk Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54740 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:54740 Jesper Harder wrote: > I'm not sure I understand your point about mailcap. Could you > explain it a bit more? Mailcap implements a "primary verb" on objects whose type (and thus the action triggered by the verb) is not known to the user. The user invokes applications which he has never run before. Experience shows that this leads to countless users shooting themselves into their feet. > I'd have thought disabling mailcap is less safe. When you launch an > attachment through mailcap an attempt is made to use a safe viewer > with the safest options -- this isn't the case if you save it to disk > and launch it in a different way (command line or double-clicking). Yes, that's an interesting situation. Typical invocations omit options like -dSAFER. So it's essentially unfixable. *sigh*