Re: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

Re: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-10-26, at 10:36, Katsumi Yamaoka <yamaoka@jpl.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:33:23 +0100, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>> !     (when head
>> !       (goto-char (point-max))
>> !       (search-backward "\n-- \n" nil t))
>
> This makes the signature unseen to not a few recipients (except
> Emacs users).  IOW, many mail programs aren't fully MIME compliant;
> they assume MIME-parts other than the first one all not inlinable
> attachments.  It's too bad, though.

I see.  This probably makes my suggestion unreasonable at best.

BTW, does that mean that if I inline the attachment (which I do
frequently), some people might not see anything after that?

And now I've got a question: how can I reliably find the part
responsible for the attachment (sorry, I don't know the correct term for
it) in the buffer?

> Regards,

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

[Andreas Schwab]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> And now I've got a question: how can I reliably find the part
> responsible for the attachment (sorry, I don't know the correct term for
> it) in the buffer?

If you are in the body then mml-attach-file always puts the attachment
at point.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-10-26, at 12:02, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
>
>> And now I've got a question: how can I reliably find the part
>> responsible for the attachment (sorry, I don't know the correct term for
>> it) in the buffer?
>
> If you are in the body then mml-attach-file always puts the attachment
> at point.

I know that from reading the source of `mml-attach-file'.  But it
doesn't help at all.  Assume that I already have an attachment
/somewhere/ in the email (never mind how it got there - probably by
means of `gnus-dired-attach').  How can I find that place?

> Andreas.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

[Andreas Schwab]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> I know that from reading the source of `mml-attach-file'.  But it
> doesn't help at all.  Assume that I already have an attachment
> /somewhere/ in the email (never mind how it got there - probably by
> means of `gnus-dired-attach').  How can I find that place?

Look for the mml tag?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

[Katsumi Yamaoka]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:37:52 +0100, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> BTW, does that mean that if I inline the attachment (which I do
> frequently), some people might not see anything after that?

AFAIK, at least MS outlook, one of the most popular mailers,
doesn't display image/*, text/*, etc. inline even if they are
specified inline; all those are only buttonized.  People can
click and view them of course, though.

> And now I've got a question: how can I reliably find the part
> responsible for the attachment (sorry, I don't know the correct term for
> it) in the buffer?

Well, all MIME parts except for the first text part will get
attachments that aren't inlined in Windows' mail programs, I
think.

Regards,

RE: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

[Drew Adams]

> AFAIK, at least MS outlook, one of the most popular mailers,
> doesn't display image/*, text/*, etc. inline even if they are
> specified inline; all those are only buttonized.  People can
> click and view them of course, though.

Not true.  If the image is "inserted" into the message content,
i.e., it appears inlined, as expected.  If the image file is
sent as an attachment then it does not.

There might be a setting that affects the behavior; dunno.
But this is what I see, without having changed any such
setting.

To insert an image in line, at the cursor position:

1. The message must be HTML, not plain-text.
2. Use menu Insert > Picture.

Re: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

[Emanuel Berg]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> BTW, does that mean that if I inline the attachment
> (which I do frequently), some people might not see
> anything after that?
>
> And now I've got a question: how can I reliably find
> the part responsible for the attachment (sorry,
> I don't know the correct term for it) in the buffer?

This book is old (ancient) but if you are into this
kind of details it is a treasure:

    @book{internet-message,
      title      = {The Internet Message: Closing the Book with Electronic Mail},
      author     = {Marshall Rose},
      publisher  = {Prentice-Hall},
      year       = 1993,
      ISBN       = {0-13-092941-7},
    }

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Re: Why does mml-attach-file put the attachment at the very end of the message...

[Nicolas Richard]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> BTW, does that mean that if I inline the attachment (which I do
> frequently), some people might not see anything after that?

FWIW it happenned to me : I sent an inlined attachment then went on with
my email, and some of the recipients saw --in their client, I don't know
what it was-- a mail truncated at the place where the attachment was. Of
course this went unnoticed for a few days...

-- 
Nicolas Richard