From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/19458 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hrvoje Niksic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Automatic part insertion: едц and =?cn-gb-2312?b?s9TExMj7?= on the same line Date: 02 Dec 1998 18:50:39 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <6f67buzzff.fsf@dna.lth.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035157803 11704 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:50:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:50:03 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (gizmo.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.102.31]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01058 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:52:45 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@sina.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.3.5]) by gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15327; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:51:33 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:51:18 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA06791 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 11:51:09 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01017 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:50:45 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from hniksic@localhost) by jagor.srce.hr (8.9.0/8.9.0) id SAA03019; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:50:39 +0100 (MET) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: Hrvoje X-Face: &{dT~)Pu6V<0y?>3p$;@vh\`C7xB~A0T-J%Og)J,@-1%q6Q+, gs<-9M#&`I8cJp2b1{vPE|~+JE+gx;a7%BG{}nY^ehK1"q#rG O,Rn1A_Cy%t]V=Brv7h writes: > "KS" == Kurt Swanson writes: > > KS> Automatic part insertion: > > Well, very nice. :-) I take my words back about automatical parts > insertions, _provided_that_ there is an RFC which specifies that some > part should be displayed as a continuation of the line of previous > part (as gnus did when displaying your message). Is it really > documented? Well. RFC's don't normally specify message rendering. However, it *is* documented that the newline preceding the closing boundary is syntactically a part of the boundary. Quoth rfc2046: The boundary delimiter MUST occur at the beginning of a line, i.e., following a CRLF, and the initial CRLF is considered to be attached to the boundary delimiter line rather than part of the preceding part. This implies that this: --boundary text --boundary-- means `text' without newline, while --boundary text --boundary-- means `text ', all with the newline. So what Gnus does is quite right. This also explains why many MIME composers insert seemingly redundant newlines before the closing boundaries. But then again, noone can guarantee anything about how others will display it. Netscape, for one, displays a horizontal ruler between the multiparts, and I can't find a good objection to that. > If so, then all is fine. Also, gnus should prefer to not create > `automagical' mime parts if it _can_ find a single charset for the > whole part. Agreed. Gnus should try not to use magic if it is at all possible. -- Hrvoje Niksic | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!