Automagic content recognition - good or bad?

Automagic content recognition - good or bad?

[Bjørn Mork]

Gnus tries very hard to be smart when viewing articles with
encapsulated files. But in the MIME-enabled world of today I often
find this more annoying than useful. Sure, recognising uuencoded files
may still be of some use, but shell archives and postscript files? I
propose that this feature is turned off by default. Ordinary lusers
like myself are very confused by not being able to discuss simple
shell scripts like

#!/bin/sh
echo .
exit 0

without Gnus thinking it's a shell archive and making an attachment
out of it.


Bjørn
-- 
Save the lawyers!  

Re: Automagic content recognition - good or bad?

[Kai Großjohann]

You can always frob mm-uu-beginning-regexp and perhaps
mm-uu-type-alist.

M-x apropos-value RET #! RET is my friend.  It helped me find these
things very quickly :-)

kai
-- 
A large number of young women don't trust men with beards.  (BFBS Radio)

Re: Automagic content recognition - good or bad?

[Bjørn Mork]

Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Großjohann) writes:

> You can always frob mm-uu-beginning-regexp and perhaps
> mm-uu-type-alist.

Thanks. I already found mm-uu-configure-list which did what I wanted.

But my question is really whether the default makes any sense? Having
such features is great; turning them on by default is...well, not as
great. IMHO.

> M-x apropos-value RET #! RET is my friend.  It helped me find these
> things very quickly :-)

Oh, I should learn to use emacs sometime :-) I usually grep for these
things in the gnus/lisp directory...


Bjørn

Re: Automagic content recognition - good or bad?

[Josh Huber]

Bjørn Mork <bmork@dod.no> writes:

> Thanks. I already found mm-uu-configure-list which did what I
> wanted.
>
> But my question is really whether the default makes any sense? 
> Having such features is great; turning them on by default is...well,
> not as great. IMHO.

I agree, having Gnus (by default) turn a snippit of shell code into an
attachment seems pretty bogus to me.

-- 
Josh Huber

Re: Automagic content recognition - good or bad?

[Frank Schmitt]

Josh Huber <huber@alum.wpi.edu> writes:

> I agree, having Gnus (by default) turn a snippit of shell code into an
> attachment seems pretty bogus to me.

AOL

-- 
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Re: Automagic content recognition - good or bad?

[Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen]

Bjørn Mork <bmork@dod.no> writes:

> Gnus tries very hard to be smart when viewing articles with
> encapsulated files. But in the MIME-enabled world of today I often
> find this more annoying than useful. Sure, recognising uuencoded files
> may still be of some use, but shell archives and postscript files? I
> propose that this feature is turned off by default. Ordinary lusers
> like myself are very confused by not being able to discuss simple
> shell scripts like
>
> #!/bin/sh
> echo .
> exit 0
>
> without Gnus thinking it's a shell archive and making an attachment
> out of it.

I've now changed the default of `mm-uu-configure-list' to
`((shar . disabled))'.  If anybody has any objections, please holler. 

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen

Re: Automagic content recognition - good or bad?

[Karl Eichwalder]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> I've now changed the default of `mm-uu-configure-list' to
> `((shar . disabled))'.  If anybody has any objections, please holler. 

Good, thanks!

-- 
ke@suse.de (work) / keichwa@gmx.net (home):              |
http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/                            |      ,__o
Free Translation Project:                                |    _-\_<,
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/contrib/po/HTML/             |   (*)/'(*)