From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/32167
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: wmperry@aventail.com (William M. Perry)
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Shouldn't Gnus (er, W3) inline related images in <img src=cid:...>?
Date: 14 Aug 2000 09:00:29 -0500
Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu
Message-ID: <86og2w2b9e.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
References: <vxkog8zlmbf.fsf@beaver.jprc.com>
	<m37lds34e9.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>
	<87n1moph1r.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net>
	<m3g0sgwfj9.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>
	<87ya672i8q.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net>
	<m3wvlql4dx.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>
	<87bt30n4sf.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net>
	<m3zomlhs0t.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org>
	<87hf8tc5hx.fsf@cachemir.echo-net.net>
	<m3itt9hrge.fsf@quimbies.gnus.org> <87og303647.fsf@worldonline.dk>
	<2ng0ocmn6o.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet>
	<vafya24ndhd.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<2nya23kixe.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet>
	<vafwvhn33zp.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<2nlmy3jx1l.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet>
	<vafhf8p6t77.fsf@lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
	<87og2w8qng.fsf@inanna.danann.net>
Reply-To: wmperry@aventail.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035168482 18208 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:48:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:48:02 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: ding@gnus.org
Return-Path: <owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu>
Original-Received: from spinoza.math.uh.edu (spinoza.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.18])
	by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D84D051E
	for <jason@mailhost.sclp.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:45:00 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5])
	by spinoza.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAC16511;
	Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:44:57 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:44:11 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged))
	by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA19867
	for <ding@hpc.uh.edu>; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:43:57 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from sigterm.aventail.com (sigterm.aventail.com [206.253.217.145])
	by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41566D051E
	for <ding@gnus.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:44:27 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: from leo.in.aventail.com (leo.in.aventail.com [192.168.1.136])
	by sigterm.aventail.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e7EFiPj26107;
	Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Original-Received: from localhost.localdomain (dhcp-3-240.in.aventail.com [192.168.3.240]) by leo.in.aventail.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2448.0)
	id QDL676PN; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:42:56 -0700
Original-Received: (from wmperry@localhost)
	by localhost.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA13244;
	Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:00:30 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: wmperry set sender to wmperry@aventail.com using -f
Original-To: "Daniel Pittman" <daniel@danann.net>
X-Now-Listening-To: Warren Zevon - Excitable Boy
X-Face: O~Rn;(l][/-o1sALg4A@xpE:9-"'IR[%;,,!m7</SYF`{vYQ(&RI1&EiH[FvT;J}@f!4kfz
 x_!Y#=y{Uuj9GvUi=cPuajQ(Z42R[wE@{G,sn$qGr5g/wnb*"*ktI+,CD}1Z'wxrM2ag-r0p5I6\nA
 [WJopW_J.WY;
In-Reply-To: "Daniel Pittman"'s message of "14 Aug 2000 13:31:31 +1000"
Original-Lines: 25
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Capitol Reef)
Precedence: list
X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32167
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32167

"Daniel Pittman" <daniel@danann.net> writes:

> On 13 Aug 2000, Kai Gro=DFjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE>
> wrote:
>=20
> > On 11 Aug 2000, ShengHuo ZHU wrote:
>=20
> [...]
>=20
> > Is there a standard of some kind that we can turn to to find out what
> > is the right behavior?  Should the behavior of the metamail program be
> > considered a standard?
>=20
> Last time I went hunting for information on this, that was the closest I
> got. 'metamail' seems to be the /only/ reference to how it 'should'
> work, and that's not actually documented.

RFC 1343 is where you should look - there are relevant chunks quoted from
it in the emacs/w3 manual.  It doesn't really seem to have anything to say
on dealing with multiple mailcap files.

We could assign a new weight by file location, and use that in
mm-viewer-lessp, but that could get tricky.

-Bill P.