Re: mutt/2201: wish: <view-attach> a message/rfc822 applies $display_filter
The following reply was made to PR mutt/2201; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Gary Johnson <garyjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Mutt Developers <mutt-dev@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: mutt/2201: wish: <view-attach> a message/rfc822 applies
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:58:19 -0700
On 2006-07-21, Alain Bench <veronatif@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> The following reply was made to PR mutt/2201; it has been noted by GNATS.
> From: Alain Bench <veronatif@xxxxxxx>
> To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: mutt/2201: wish: <view-attach> a message/rfc822 applies
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:38:52 +0200 (CEST)
> Hello Nicolas,
> On Sunday, June 4, 2006 at 23:25:01 +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> > * Alain Bench <veronatif@xxxxxxx> [2006-06-04 18:13 +0200]:
> >> wish to make use of $display_filter in attachments menu. Only for
> >> message/rfc822, or also for text/* parts?
> > the filter would have to recognize wether it's used for an arbitrary
> > text or for an mail if it's used to manipulate the headers.
> Hum... Changing to apply $display_filter to text/* parts would
> possibly perturbate existing filters: Bad. What if Mutt would, only for
> non-messages, do:
> -1) prepend \n
> -2) apply $display_filter
> -3) strip 1st char if it's still a \n
> This would hopefully not perturbate existing full filters, and the
> empty first line would probably be a sufficient end-of-header indication
> for all filters needing header/body distinction.
Since the content of a text/* part display is different from that of
a message or message/rfc822 part display, it might be better to
create a new display filter variable for the former. I am concerned
that applying $display_filter in too many applications with
different requirements will make it difficult to write a simple yet
Gary Johnson | Agilent Technologies
garyjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Wireless Division
http://www.spocom.com/users/gjohnson/mutt/ | Spokane, Washington, USA