On 2017-06-13 10:44:41 -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 09:11:24AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > 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. > > Which matters exactly zero if you use application/octet-stream.
But the goal is to have text/plain on text files. > > Very often it does not have a file extension. > > "Arbitrary text" has a MIME type and associated file extension; Of course, this is completely wrong! Just look at all the files without a file extension (or with a non-standard one) in the Mutt repository, for instance. > If you still choose not to, then application/octet-stream is fine, and > you can change it manually if not. Small price to pay for your > stubborn refusal to adhere to existing standards. Again, your remark in completely stupid. The standard is that some files may not have an extension. And usual software regards them as text if they are obviously text. [snipped non-sense] -- 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)
