* C-d displays duplicated parts @ 1999-07-20 19:55 Vladimir Volovich 1999-07-21 1:59 ` Justin Sheehy 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Volovich @ 1999-07-20 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi, i received a multipart/mixed message which contains a text/plain part (the first one), and then five message/rfc822 parts; each of them has the following headers: Content-Type: MESSAGE/rfc822; name=Mailbox Content-Description: Mailbox When pressing C-d in a summary buffer, i get the following: R [ 303: Himanshu Gohel ] <* mixed> Re: shared libs in teTeX R [ 17: Himanshu Gohel ] <1 text> R [ 31: Himanshu Gohel ] <2 rfc822> Mailbox R [ 15: Thomas Esser ] <2 text> Re: shared lib on Solaris and -Rpath R [ 90: Himanshu Gohel ] <3 rfc822> Mailbox R [ 66: Calum Mackay - Compu] <3 text> Re: shared lib on Solaris and -Rpath R [ 44: Himanshu Gohel ] <4 rfc822> Mailbox R [ 20: Calum Mackay - Compu] <4 text> Re: shared lib on Solaris and -Rpath R [ 52: Himanshu Gohel ] <5 rfc822> Mailbox R [ 29: Keith Refson ] <5 text> Re: shared lib on Solaris and -Rpath R [ 43: Himanshu Gohel ] <6 rfc822> Mailbox R [ 27: Thomas Esser ] <6 text> Re: shared lib on Solaris and -Rpath I.e. each message/rfc822 part is "duplicated". Is this correct? Best regards, -- Vladimir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-07-20 19:55 C-d displays duplicated parts Vladimir Volovich @ 1999-07-21 1:59 ` Justin Sheehy 1999-07-21 7:44 ` Vladimir Volovich 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Justin Sheehy @ 1999-07-21 1:59 UTC (permalink / raw) Vladimir Volovich <vvv@vvv.vsu.ru> writes: > i received a multipart/mixed message which contains a text/plain part > (the first one), and then five message/rfc822 parts; each of them has > the following headers: > I.e. each message/rfc822 part is "duplicated". Is this correct? >From what you posted, it looks like each message/rfc822 part was presented exactly once. Perhaps you mean something different by "duplicated" than what I usually infer from that word... -Justin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-07-21 1:59 ` Justin Sheehy @ 1999-07-21 7:44 ` Vladimir Volovich 1999-08-27 21:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Volovich @ 1999-07-21 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw) "JS" == Justin Sheehy writes: JS> Vladimir Volovich <vvv@vvv.vsu.ru> writes: >> i received a multipart/mixed message which contains a text/plain >> part (the first one), and then five message/rfc822 parts; each of >> them has the following headers: >> I.e. each message/rfc822 part is "duplicated". Is this correct? JS> From what you posted, it looks like each message/rfc822 part was JS> presented exactly once. Perhaps you mean something different by JS> "duplicated" than what I usually infer from that word... i mean that each rfc822 part was represented with two lines, e.g. the first one: R [ 31: Himanshu Gohel ] <2 rfc822> Mailbox R [ 15: Thomas Esser ] <2 text> Re: shared lib on Solaris and -Rpath Pressing on the line R [ 31: Himanshu Gohel ] <2 rfc822> Mailbox shows a parsed message/rfc822 buffer (i.e. headers of the original message, then headers of the attached message, then message body of attached message). Pressing on the line R [ 15: Thomas Esser ] <2 text> Re: shared lib on Solaris and -Rpath shows only the attached rfc822 message. it seems that this is enough, :) and the line R [ 31: Himanshu Gohel ] <2 rfc822> Mailbox is not necessary: each message/rfc822 attachment is represented with two lines, which seems wrong. Best regards, -- Vladimir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-07-21 7:44 ` Vladimir Volovich @ 1999-08-27 21:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1999-08-27 21:29 ` François Pinard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1999-08-27 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw) Vladimir Volovich <vvv@vvv.vsu.ru> writes: > shows only the attached rfc822 message. it seems that this is enough, :) > and the line > > R [ 31: Himanshu Gohel ] <2 rfc822> Mailbox > > is not necessary: each message/rfc822 attachment is represented with > two lines, which seems wrong. Well -- it's meant to be that way, so it's right. :-) -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-08-27 21:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1999-08-27 21:29 ` François Pinard 1999-08-27 21:51 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: François Pinard @ 1999-08-27 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw) Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes: > Vladimir Volovich <vvv@vvv.vsu.ru> writes: > > shows only the attached rfc822 message. it seems that this is enough, :) > > and the line > > > > R [ 31: Himanshu Gohel ] <2 rfc822> Mailbox > > > > is not necessary: each message/rfc822 attachment is represented with > > two lines, which seems wrong. > Well -- it's meant to be that way, so it's right. :-) This was a long time ago, I might not remember everything clearly. I think the choice was between showing only the <rfc822> line, and forcing the user to do another `C-d' to _enter_ it, or trying to immediately serve him, and simulate a recursive `C-d' right away, rather seamlessly integrated with the rest. But then, if the quoted message happens to be a complex one, we need some way, at the dissection level, to discriminate the passage from one message into another, so the quoted message is first announced, then sub-analysed. So, you see, it is not fully seamless. It should not be. Remember, `C-d' is not for MIME presentation. Gnus has much more convenient and sophisticated machinery for doing that. It's merely for debugging the MIME as received, or when wanting to intimately operate on MIME parts, independently of the viewing intent behind MIME, which may be very different. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-08-27 21:29 ` François Pinard @ 1999-08-27 21:51 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-27 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-27 22:11 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 1999-08-27 21:51 UTC (permalink / raw) François Pinard <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca> writes: > This was a long time ago, I might not remember everything clearly. > I think the choice was between showing only the <rfc822> line, and > forcing the user to do another `C-d' to _enter_ it, or trying to > immediately serve him, and simulate a recursive `C-d' right away, > rather seamlessly integrated with the rest. But then, if the quoted > message happens to be a complex one, we need some way, at the > dissection level, to discriminate the passage from one message into > another, so the quoted message is first announced, then > sub-analysed. So, you see, it is not fully seamless. It should not > be. I must admit that I still don't understand why you need to introduce more parts. Let's say you have a multipart message, and the first part is message/rfc822 and the second is an image. Then nndoc will display the following structure: * |\ | * message/rfc822 | \ | * text/plain \ * image/gif This looks like three parts, but the message just contains two. And in what way is the node labeled text/plain necessary? Why can't nndoc just show the contents of the text/plain thing in the message/rfc822 node? If you copy this message and leave it exactly as is, except that you replace the message/rfc822 content type with application/octet-stream, say, then you will get the following tree: * |\ | * application/octet-stream | \ * image/gif Just changing the content-type can't make a node disappear, can it? If nndoc is meant to accurately represent the MIME structure, then I feel the above is suboptimal, I'm afraid. Probably I'm overlooking something here, though, showing that I fundamentally don't grok MIME. kai -- I like BOTH kinds of music. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-08-27 21:51 ` Kai Großjohann @ 1999-08-27 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-27 22:11 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 1999-08-27 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai Großjohann <Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE> writes: > I must admit that I still don't understand why you need to introduce > more parts. I now verified the introducing-parts part as follows: I wrote a message with the following contents: ,----- | <#part> | this is part one | <#part type="message/rfc822"> | From: me | To: you | Subject: inner message | | test test `----- I sent it. I then went back and changed the "message/rfc822" into "text/plain" and sent the changed message again. I received two messages, and C-d on the first message showed this: ,----- | +[27-Aug, 0b: -> Kai Großjoha] <* mixed> test MIME | + [27-Aug, 0b: -> Kai Großjoha] <1 text> | + [27-Aug, 0b: -> Kai Großjoha] <2 rfc822> | [01-Jan, 0b: me ] <2 text> inner message `----- Whereas C-d on the second message showed this: ,----- | +[27-Aug, 0b: -> Kai Großjoha] <* mixed> test MIME | + [27-Aug, 0b: -> Kai Großjoha] <1 text> | [27-Aug, 0b: me ] inner message `----- I think that pretty much proves my `a node is added' statement. Can you explain why that node is added? kai -- I like BOTH kinds of music. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-08-27 21:51 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-27 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann @ 1999-08-27 22:11 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1999-08-27 22:16 ` Kai Großjohann 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1999-08-27 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 299 bytes --] Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > I must admit that I still don't understand why you need to introduce > more parts. [ 168: Stephen J. Turnbull ] <* mixed> forwarded message [ 7: Stephen J. Turnbull ] <1 text> [ 23: Stephen J. Turnbull ] <2 rfc822> [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 619 bytes --] [ 9: Stephen J. Turnbull ] <2 text> 日光"日光" It's necessary if you want to treat all parts equally. For instance, here you have a multipart/mixed with one text/plain part and one message/rfc822. If you select the parts on the second "level", you get articles that have headers from the parent. The last article here has headers from the rfc822 part itself. And so on. Not doing it this way would raise the contents of the rfc822 part "up" one level, above where it properly belongs. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-08-27 22:11 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1999-08-27 22:16 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-27 22:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 1999-08-27 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes: > It's necessary if you want to treat all parts equally. For instance, > here you have a multipart/mixed with one text/plain part and one > message/rfc822. If you select the parts on the second "level", you > get articles that have headers from the parent. [...] Oh. Yes, I understand what you're saying now. I still think that the other position is defensible, but yours is, too. So I'll just keep my mouth shut. kai -- I like BOTH kinds of music. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-08-27 22:16 ` Kai Großjohann @ 1999-08-27 22:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1999-08-28 13:53 ` Kai Großjohann 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1999-08-27 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > Oh. Yes, I understand what you're saying now. Er... You do? Could you explain it to me, then? I'm not quite sure I got it right, but François's explanation of it makes perfect sense every time I read it. :-) > I still think that the other position is defensible, but yours is, > too. So I'll just keep my mouth shut. :-) Anyway, the MIME nndoc thing is just so that one can inspect and reply to various parts of it, and the more details the better. People aren't supposed to actually use it for normal viewing. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-08-27 22:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1999-08-28 13:53 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-28 16:06 ` François Pinard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Kai Großjohann @ 1999-08-28 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw) Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes: > Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes: > > > Oh. Yes, I understand what you're saying now. > > Er... You do? Could you explain it to me, then? Hm. I understood that the parts usually use the headers of their parent, so you (and François) want to do that for message/rfc822 as well. Hence you need to show two sets of headers for a message/rfc822 part, hence two parts. Err. When a text/plain part looks like a message/rfc822 part, the From and Subject headers are displayed at the top level and there is no extra part. Oh, well... Anybody got that explanation from François? kai -- I like BOTH kinds of music. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: C-d displays duplicated parts 1999-08-28 13:53 ` Kai Großjohann @ 1999-08-28 16:06 ` François Pinard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: François Pinard @ 1999-08-28 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: ding Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) écrit: > Anybody got that explanation from François? Please don't take me too seriously, even if if I look like having opinions. (People without opinions are boring, people being nothing but opinions are unbearable. Worse is that some receive opinions as deadly missiles :-). `C-d' is useful to dissect a MIME message for analysis, and if it might be improved, so be it. But this is a very secondary matter, in practice. It was meant, at the very earliest stages of MIME support in Gnus, as a tool so Lars and developers could study the structure of existing MIME messages, but maybe more importantly, as a way to remove in advance the encumbrance of many concerns which traditionally plagued other MIME readers, prohibiting these to get a clear grasp of what should really be done. The MIME viewer in Gnus is already quite satisfying as it stands, and so far that I understand things, is much in the spirit of the MIME designer. The worse dangers being discarded by now, `C-d' has played its main role. I would surely not object that it evolves into something a bit different, and moreover, this is Lars who decides. Maybe he might accept patches? Yet, my feeling is that it is not really worth working much on `C-d'. Rather, instead, one should build nice things using the more recent Gnus MIME API. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-08-28 16:06 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1999-07-20 19:55 C-d displays duplicated parts Vladimir Volovich 1999-07-21 1:59 ` Justin Sheehy 1999-07-21 7:44 ` Vladimir Volovich 1999-08-27 21:05 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1999-08-27 21:29 ` François Pinard 1999-08-27 21:51 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-27 22:04 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-27 22:11 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1999-08-27 22:16 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-27 22:31 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen 1999-08-28 13:53 ` Kai Großjohann 1999-08-28 16:06 ` François Pinard
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).