From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/26001 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matt McClure Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: no button for hidden MIME part Date: 22 Oct 1999 10:57:15 -0400 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035163292 17160 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 01:21:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from bart.math.uh.edu (bart.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.48]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA19143 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:57:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by bart.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAB17601; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:57:37 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:58:00 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA14590 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:57:51 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from shell.faradic.net (root@shell.faradic.net [151.198.193.5]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA19138 for ; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from mmcclure@localhost) by shell.faradic.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) id KAA23358; Fri, 22 Oct 1999 10:57:15 -0400 Original-To: Gnus Ding List In-Reply-To: Alan Shutko's message of "22 Oct 1999 10:39:27 -0400" Original-Lines: 29 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070096 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.96) Emacs/20.3 Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:26001 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:26001 Date: 22 Oct 1999 10:39:27 -0400 From: Alan Shutko > Matt McClure writes: > > > I would have had no idea there was an attachment if the text of the > > message hadn't referred to it. > > IMHO, it's the sender's fault. The mail was multipart/alternative, > which means that it's the same content, different renderings. In this > case, it _wasn't_ the same content, so they should have used > multipart/mixed. I'm not familiar with what the different content types mean, but I'll take your word for it. However, to quote the Gnus manual: Unfortunately, people are quite bad at writing, so there are tons of functions and variables to make reading these articles easier. I think Gnus should still try to compensate for broken messages such as this. -- -------------------------------------- | matthew.mcclure.es.99@aya.yale.edu | | http://www.faradic.net/~mmcclure | --------------------------------------