On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 07:33:21PM -0400, John Hawkinson wrote: > > Peeking in the function myself, in the "normal" case where the mailcap > > contains a '%s', Mutt calls mutt_system(), which would send keepalives. > > However, if the mailcap entry is missing a '%s' filename specifier, I > > see Mutt instead pipes the message on stdin uses the filter code. > > It seems to be slightly more than that, like if "use_pager" is true;
Yup, but the use_pager case is for copiousoutput entries, which are rendered in the pager. Here I was concerned with external viewers. > > The patch looks fine, but I wonder if we need to apply this hammer to > > every filter. Filters are (supposed to be) short lived and produce > > output back into Mutt for display; I think this may be the only case in > > the code where we a using it to launch an external program for > > interaction. > > It seems to me that while filters are supposed to be short-lived, they > may not always be, and in the cases where they are short-lived, this > won't make much difference. (Counterargument: messing with signals is > dicey and should be avoided any more than is strictly necessary). Yeah, I don't like to add in the extra timeouts all over the place if it's not really necessary. But maybe you're right, I'll think about it when I have more time this week. > > Perhaps it would be better to just adjust the "is_pipe" case for > > mutt_view_attachment(). Please give me a few days to look into that > > first. > > Err, the "use_pipe" case. Sorry yes, (!use_pager && use_pipe) was what I was thinking. I'm a bit short on time today, so am just replying quickly. :-) -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
