From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/32155 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Daniel Pittman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Shouldn't Gnus (er, W3) inline related images in ? Date: 14 Aug 2000 13:31:31 +1000 Organization: Not today, thank you, Mother. Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: <87og2w8qng.fsf@inanna.danann.net> References: <87n1moph1r.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net> <87ya672i8q.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net> <87bt30n4sf.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net> <87hf8tc5hx.fsf@cachemir.echo-net.net> <87og303647.fsf@worldonline.dk> <2ng0ocmn6o.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet> <2nya23kixe.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet> <2nlmy3jx1l.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet> 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 1035168472 18125 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:47:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:47:52 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from spinoza.math.uh.edu (spinoza.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.18]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A503FD051E for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:36:50 -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 WAC12343; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:36:44 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:34:41 -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 WAA11704 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 22:34:27 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from fw01.osa.com.au (fw01.osa.com.au [203.6.130.130]) by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E0F7D051E for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 23:34:55 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (qmail 3271 invoked by uid 0); 14 Aug 2000 03:34:51 -0000 Original-Received: (ofmipd 172.16.33.89); 14 Aug 2000 03:34:29 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 16193 invoked by uid 0); 14 Aug 2000 03:34:51 -0000 Original-Received: from inanna.osa.com.au (HELO inanna.danann.net) (172.16.33.101) by excalibur.osa.com.au with SMTP; 14 Aug 2000 03:34:51 -0000 Original-Received: by inanna.danann.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6F0E62802A; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:31:31 +1000 (EST) Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's message of "13 Aug 2000 18:07:08 +0200" X-Homepage: http://danann.net/ X-spies: cypherpunk Ft. Meade World Trade Center ammunition domestic disruption Roswell Ft. Bragg Bosnia Cocaine radar Lon Horiuchi COSCO NORAD Ron Brown Ortega Original-Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.2 (Nike) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32155 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32155 On 13 Aug 2000, Kai Gro=DFjohann wrote: > On 11 Aug 2000, ShengHuo ZHU wrote: [...] > 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? 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. Which is less than ideal, I think. Daniel --=20 > What should I look for in a good bird bath? And in response, thus spake the Oracle: } In a good bird bath? I'd expect to find birds. } In a bad bird bath, tarantulas.