On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 06:13:58PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 02:03:34AM +0200, Andries E. Brouwer wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 09:15:23AM +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote: > > > On 05Jun2017 22:12, Andries E. Brouwer <andries.brou...@cwi.nl> wrote: > > >> A moment ago I sent 8 images as attachment with mutt. > > >> Three were garbled on arrival. > > > > > > Just for some more context, did the files lack a useful file extension? > > > > No mime-type was known. No mechanism using mime-types could work. > > That can't be true. You said you attached the files... they had to be > on disk and had to have names. Even if your image format is > proprietary and lacks an official standard, you can manually set its > MIME type to application/octet-stream.
You seem unable to read or have no imagination. Here are files on a 22-year old filesystem. I have no idea about the contents. I forward the files to someone interested. They arrive corrupted. I investigate the reason for the corruption and find out that some silly guessing is going on, so that even files with many NUL bytes can be seen by mutt as text files. Of course I might have read the mutt source first, I might have seen that mutt is buggy and does this silly guessing, and could have corrected the mime type by hand. There are lots of other things I could have done. But I just expected the mutt default to work. It didn't. > > Using information when it is available is a separate discussion. > > In the present discussion one only has the file contents. > > This also is not true. When you asked Mutt to attach the file, you > had to tell it the name of the file. If you specified a bad filename > or didn't configure your mime types properly that's user error. What a strange ideas some people have... Please read the bug report, and shut up if you have nothing helpful to contribute. I know that you are an active contributor to mutt. Still it doesnt help when people encounter a bug to deny that there is a problem, or to reply telling the reporter that his bug report is inaccurate, where in fact it is precise and correct. Andries
