From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/16490
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Steinar Bang <sb@metis.no>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Functional requirements for Gnus
Date: 31 Aug 1998 10:49:49 +0200
Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu
Message-ID: <wh7lzptu1e.fsf@viffer.oslo.metis.no>
References: <whzpcr6d7y.fsf@viffer.oslo.metis.no> <vafww7tlaic.fsf@ramses.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035155353 28110 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:09:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:09:13 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu>
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 EAA12072
	for <jason@mailhost.sclp.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 04:52:39 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (sina.hpc.uh.edu [129.7.3.5]) by gizmo.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAF22026; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 03:23:44 -0500
Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Mon, 31 Aug 1998 03:51:09 -0500 (CDT)
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 DAA02827 for <ding@hpc.uh.edu>; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 03:50:55 -0500 (CDT)
Original-Received: from viffer.oslo.metis.no (viffer.oslo.metis.no [195.0.254.249])
	by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA12053
	for <ding@gnus.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 1998 04:50:45 -0400 (EDT)
Original-Received: (from sb@localhost)
	by viffer.oslo.metis.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA31984;
	Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:49:49 +0200
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
In-Reply-To: Kai Grossjohann's message of "28 Aug 1998 11:29:47 +0200"
Original-Lines: 15
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.39/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald"
Precedence: list
X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:16490
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:16490

>>>>> Kai Grossjohann <grossjohann@amaunet.cs.uni-dortmund.de>:

> Coming to think of it, I think I like (3) the least, but (1) and (2)
> are ties.

> Whatcha all think?

My preference is (1), mostly because that was what I had imagined a
MIMEd mail would look like when I first read the MIME RFCs in the
summer of 1993.

(3) is pretty much what Mew did, and I didn't like it.  I went back to 
MH-E+TM.  But it would have its merits for stuff like digests.

(2) I've never thought about before.  I have to think about that.