Re: mutt/1605: MIME header copied into mail reply with 1.5.4i
The following reply was made to PR mutt/1605; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Alain Bench <veronatif@xxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Mutt dev ml <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: mutt/1605: MIME header copied into mail reply with 1.5.4i
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:04:34 +0200 (CEST)
Hi Thomas!
On Friday, September 16, 2005 at 8:25:01 PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
Content-Description: a followup to a bug report
CDisp-name:
> On 2005-09-16 20:05:01 +0200, Alain Bench wrote:
>> I agree the quoted CDesc (and Content-Disposition name parameter)
>> should get $indent_string prepended.
> I don't think so -- it's actually metainformation about the
> attachment, much like the tag line above. I really think it makes
> sense not to quote it.
Tag line == attribution line? Yes, description and name are
metainformations. So no ">". Uploaded ab.quote_description.3 doing so.
But then description looks really as a header leaking to the reply body,
triggering this bug report. We are not accustomed to see unannounced
metainfos in body, out of attribution or forward separator... Hum...
Modeled after forward, what about:
----- Content-Description: a followup to a bug report -----
...or shorter and less MIMEish:
----- Description: a followup to a bug report -----
There is also quoted the Content-Disposition name parameter. This is
very rare. Why is this one quoted, and not Content-Type name parameter?
Bye! Alain.
--
Give your computer's unused idle processor cycles to a scientific goal:
The Folding@home project at <URL:http://folding.stanford.edu/>.