On 2017-06-12 18:13:58 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > I'm not opposed to using libmagic for this, but I actually think the > heueristic code should be removed entirely from Mutt. Message bodies > should be assumed to be text, and attachments are assumed to be NOT > text, by virtue of them not being message bodies. Their types should > be determined via the standard MIME mechanisms. If those mechanisms > fail--for whatever reason--assume application/octet-stream and move > on.
I disagree: those mechanisms will typically fail on what is actually arbitrary text, because text does not correspond to a file format. Very often it does not have a file extension. > That guarantees the file will arrive unmolested and obviates the > need for some mostly pointless code in Mutt to try to guess what the > user was thinking. Even if binary data is sent as valid text (BTW, any binary data can be regarded as valid text in some user-defined character set), it should not arrive as unmolested. I mean that in any case, the user should be able to choose text/plain for "Content-Type" and be sure that no corruption occurs. It is up to Mutt to choose an adequate "Content-Transfer-Encoding". -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
