From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/32112
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=)
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Shouldn't Gnus (er, W3) inline related images in 
?
Date: 13 Aug 2000 18:07:08 +0200
Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu
Message-ID:
References:
<87n1moph1r.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net>
<87ya672i8q.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net>
<87bt30n4sf.fsf@mharnois.workgroup.net>
<87hf8tc5hx.fsf@cachemir.echo-net.net>
<87og303647.fsf@worldonline.dk>
<2ng0ocmn6o.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet>
<2nya23kixe.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet>
<2nlmy3jx1l.fsf@tiger.jia.vnet>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035168438 17922 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 02:47:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 02:47:18 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path:
Original-Received: from spinoza.math.uh.edu (spinoza.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.18])
by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550A2D051E
for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:07:56 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5])
by spinoza.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAC09558;
Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:07:46 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:07:03 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged))
by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06893
for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 11:06:50 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de (waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.4.42])
by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8782CD051E
for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 12:07:20 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: from marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de [129.217.20.159]) by waldorf.cs.uni-dortmund.de with ESMTP id SAA09827 for ; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:07:08 +0200 (MES)
Original-Received: from lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (lucy [129.217.20.160])
by marcy.cs.uni-dortmund.de id SAA17876; Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:07:08 +0200 (MET DST)
Original-Received: (from grossjoh@localhost)
by lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) id SAA00775;
Sun, 13 Aug 2000 18:07:08 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: lucy.cs.uni-dortmund.de: grossjoh set sender to Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE using -f
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
In-Reply-To: ShengHuo ZHU's message of "11 Aug 2000 17:41:10 -0400"
Original-Lines: 23
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.6
Precedence: list
X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32112
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:32112
On 11 Aug 2000, ShengHuo ZHU wrote:
> Oops. I was wrong. It should be last-parsed-file-first. The parsing
> order is "/usr/local/etc/mailcap" "/usr/etc/mailcap" "/etc/mailcap"
> "~/.mailcap", i.e. ~/.mailcap entries override /etc/mailcap ones.
> But the best viewer is selected according to mailcap-viewer-lessp.
So this means that Gnus will prefer the image/gif entry over an
image/* entry, regardless which file each came from? I haven't
grokked the source, only scanned it. But that's the way it looks.
Hm.
IMHO, an image/* entry in ~/.mailcap should override an image/gif
entry from /etc/mailcap.
Is there a standard of some kind that we can turn to to find out what
is the right behavior? Should the behavior of the metamail program be
considered a standard?
kai
--
I like BOTH kinds of music.