From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/18552 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: MIME composition (was: Storing the group a message has been written to) Date: 13 Nov 1998 19:47:12 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035157057 6780 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:37:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:37:37 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from karazm.math.uh.edu (karazm.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.1]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA23835 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:33:27 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by karazm.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAB04311; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:31:54 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:31:34 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [209.195.19.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA00529 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 13:30:36 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sparky.gnus.org (ppp028.uio.no [129.240.240.29]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA23693 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 14:30:25 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by sparky.gnus.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA12766; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 20:33:53 +0100 Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Reading: Janet Frame's _The Carpathians_ Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's message of "11 Nov 1998 14:02:22 +0100" User-Agent: Gnus/5.070043 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.43) Emacs/20.3 X-Face: &w!^oO~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\ (1) This is truly horrible, one should not depend on such an > obfuscated fact. Any suggestions for improving this? We could document it, and rename the variable to something reasonable. > (2) The group name is not unique. Sometimes the group name is > `drafts' which comes from the nndraft server, sometimes the group > name comes from the normal nnml server. I want to use this for > mail splitting. Mail splitting deals with one backend only. > Thus, I would need to find out whether the group concerned is from > that backend and to ignore it if it doesn't come from the backend > where mail splitting is done. Yes. The mail fetching/splitting this is going to be redone, so that instead of each mail backend trying to slurp in as much mail as possible, there should be one slurping instance that dispathes the mail to the backends where they should go. Should I do that next, or is MIME composition more important? Did we even discuss MIME composition? How should it be done? Here are some very, very general thoughts I have on this: 1) One should be able to create arbitrarily complex multiparts 2) The auto-save functions should work 3) Saving to drafts should work I don't really see any easy way to do this... Hm... Invisible text sucks... Hm. How about narrowing? Say: The user starts writing a message. She hits the "insert an attachment" command, which leads to the message being narrowed to what was in the buffer before, and then a new message is appended outside the narrowed region, which would, in this case, be in two parts -- the text part, and the attachment parts. Extra headers and separators would enable nndraft to recreate the situation after a crash/save. Well, ok, that's one (1) attachment, but how about fancier stuff? What if she wants to remove the attachment and include two others instead? And multipart/alternative? Er, what? I just can't visualize how a MIME composition thingie could look. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen