From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/22693 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Steinar Bang Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: IMAP + MIME + pGnus... Date: 21 Apr 1999 09:33:06 +0200 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <86emlfpdff.fsf@kramer.bp.aventail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035160567 30696 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 00:36:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from farabi.math.uh.edu (farabi.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.57]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA04068 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:34:31 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by farabi.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAB07487; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:33:30 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:34:03 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA09121 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:33:52 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from viffer.oslo.metis.no (sb@viffer.oslo.metis.no [195.0.254.249]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA04053 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 03:33:43 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: (from sb@localhost) by viffer.oslo.metis.no (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA13179; Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:33:06 +0200 Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Simon Josefsson's message of "20 Apr 1999 16:50:46 +0200" Original-Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070065 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.65) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:22693 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:22693 >>>>> Simon Josefsson : > Yup. Another approach would be to make Gnus aware of MIME-capable > backends, ie a backend function that fetched the MIME structure of the > article, and then fetch the parts it want to display. > I'm not sure which approach create the least amount of trouble with > all caching stuff. OTOH I think the second approach is much closer to > the Right Thing, so perhaps one should try that first. I agree. My vote goes to the MIME-aware backend.