On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 03:12:01PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2026-08-21 11:00:58 -0000, Crystal Kolipe via Mutt-dev wrote:On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 10:09:27AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > (actually, we want to know whether the file contents have changed).Then the correct and portable way to do it is to check file size, and if that has not changed then check the actual contents.True. This is what *must* be done. Comparing the contents should be based on a cryptographic hash because the old contents are no longer available. The current Mutt behavior is buggy (on any platform): replacing an attachment (e.g. with "mv") by an one that isn't more recent is undetected by Mutt, while the goal of the test is to detect a replacement to ensure that the encoding is correct.
I'm not strongly opposed to doing a hash. But I think the original intent was to protect the user against accidental trip-ups, not to provide a fool-proof measure. The user can just as easily override encoding and types if they want to send something incorrect.
-- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
