From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Teemu Likonen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Sending attachments Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:16:07 +0300 Message-ID: <871vor45w8.fsf@iki.fi> References: <87k52rzyn1.fsf@benthic.rattlesnake.com> <873a9fw6dt.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <87y6r7yp1y.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87ljn1dcc4.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4A5485D0.5060808@gnu.org> <87d48b9trl.fsf@catnip.gol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1247062923 15347 80.91.229.12 (8 Jul 2009 14:22:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, Jason Rumney To: Miles Bader Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 08 16:21:56 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MOY1r-0005Bv-JR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:21:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54281 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MOY1q-0005In-T8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:21:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MOXwn-0008Rr-Et for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:16:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MOXwh-0008KA-Be for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:16:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45316 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MOXwg-0008Jq-Vh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:16:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mta-out.inet.fi ([195.156.147.13]:59914 helo=jenni1.inet.fi) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MOXwa-0000c5-BV; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:16:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mithlond.arda.local (80.220.180.181) by jenni1.inet.fi (8.5.014) id 49F59766028B59C0; Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:16:12 +0300 Original-Received: from dtw by mithlond.arda.local with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MOXwN-0005zN-1f; Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:16:07 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87d48b9trl.fsf@catnip.gol.com> (Miles Bader's message of "Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:41:34 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:112181 Archived-At: On 2009-07-08 22:41 (+0900), Miles Bader wrote: > Jason Rumney writes: >> always have a disposition of inline, and again not use description. > > Hmm, I think disposition=inline is often (usually?) wrong... > My impression is that most people, when they attach something, want it > attached as a separate downloadable thingie. It's very useful to have a choice. For small textual file the "inline" type is good because it can be seen and read without further action. An example: http://emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3437#10 Inline MIME part is better than putting the content to the message body because it is protected from possible word-wrapping of the editor or mail client. Inline parts can be saved to disk too. Real attachment is obviously better for binary files and large textual files. It would waste too much space if a large textual attachment was an "inline". In my opinion mml-attach-file does not ask "annoying question". Other than choosing the file user can just press Enter to all the questions.