From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/2297
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: spamtrap@koldfront.dk (Adam =?iso-8859-1?q?Sj=F8gren?=)
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.user
Subject: Re: multiple mailcap entries
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:32:20 +0200
Organization: koldfront - analysis & revolution, Copenhagen, Denmark
Message-ID: <87znmvhgu3.fsf@virgil.koldfront.dk>
References: <q5gof3fddg7.fsf@lucent.com> <m3el4bhge0.fsf@defun.localdomain>
 <q5gsmspnnmr.fsf@lucent.com> <m3fzooesro.fsf@defun.localdomain>
 <i7he9396e8.fsf@hilbert.math.albany.edu>
 <m3adevu7il.fsf@defun.localdomain>
 <84brzbvj0v.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138668778 14616 80.91.229.2 (31 Jan 2006 00:52:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:52:58 +0000 (UTC)
Original-X-From: nobody Tue Jan 17 17:30:28 2006
Original-Path: quimby.gnus.org!newsfeed1.e.nsc.no!nsc.no!nextra.com!uninett.no!news.net.uni-c.dk!sunsite.dk!news.szn.dk!news.koldfront.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.gnus
Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: virgil.koldfront.dk
Original-X-Trace: virgil.koldfront.dk 1050161540 7869 127.0.0.1 (12 Apr 2003 15:32:20 GMT)
Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@koldfront.dk
Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:32:20 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090017 (Oort Gnus v0.17) XEmacs/21.4 (Portable Code,
 linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R8U/oRfWa00oLNryyfJUMznSTpI=
Original-Xref: bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de gnus-emacs-gnus:2437
Original-Lines: 21
X-Gnus-Article-Number: 2437   Tue Jan 17 17:30:28 2006
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.user:2297
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.user/2297>

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 17:21:20 +0200, Kai Großjohann wrote:

>> I don't know.  RFC 1524 specifies the order in which they should be
>> used:

>> |    $HOME/.mailcap:/etc/mailcap:/usr/etc/mailcap:/usr/local/etc/mailcap

> IMHO the ordering given there doesn't make sense -- maybe there is a
> bug in RFC 1524?

What is it about the ordering, that doesn't make sense?

It looks like "Choose user-preference first, then go systemwide -
preferring the most global existing mailcap", to me?


  Best regards,

-- 
 "Vilken sanning, Måns, är sann?"                              Adam Sjøgren
                                                          asjo@koldfront.dk