From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Change in rmail-insert-mime-forwarded-message Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:15:15 +0200 Message-ID: <83obgygtwc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83lic58xo4.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1357751733 6869 80.91.229.3 (9 Jan 2013 17:15:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 17:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mark.lillibridge@hp.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 09 18:15:50 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TszFj-000627-31 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 18:15:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45359 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TszFT-0007PK-95 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:15:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55510) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TszFO-0007DU-4K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:15:28 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TszFM-0003el-ED for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:15:25 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:50981) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TszFM-0003eS-6i; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 12:15:24 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MGD00500BVVGO00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:14:59 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MGD00578BWZCA30@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Wed, 09 Jan 2013 19:14:59 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:156175 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:11:24 -0500 > From: Richard Stallman > CC: mark.lillibridge@hp.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > The question is, is it right to send the undecoded message > or is it better to send what is visible? You can only send what is visible if the attachment was human-readable text. You cannot do that with binary attachments. Also, if the mail you forward has both text and HTML format, the recipient will be unable to display HTML or text depending on her mail agent, but will see both of them. So I think it is better to send them encoded, so they appear as attachments on the receiving side.