At Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:54:15 -0500, Kyle Wheeler wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Saturday, July 18 at 02:41 PM, quoth lee: > >> Hmm, well, I guess I see your point, but not even mutt supports > >> batch-decoding like that. Do you perhaps have a perl script of some > >> kind that you use to bulk-decode like that? > > > Perhaps we should make a feature request? > > Well, I was thinking that it might be possible using tags and piping > with a slick perl script, that you could glue together with a macro..
Yeah, IIRC, there are perl libraries to handle mime things. Or you could always make some bash script that uses one of the softwares that can handle mime, like metamail, to send a whole folder out as a message. Another script could handle unpacking the message. > > Speaking of which, I sometimes wished that I could just attach a > > whole folder instead of having to attach all the files separately. > > You *can* do the tag-and-attach approach. Saves time over attaching > each file independently. I know, but I just happend to try to attach the whole folder somethimes without thinking and then found that I can't ... > > So where's the full MUA support of the mime stuff? > > Good question. > > For what it's worth, another way to segment large files (or > collections of files) is to use the shell utility `split` > > Not exactly *convenient*, though... but unless your recipient is using > Outlook Express, there's not much point in using a MIME trick that > they can't take advantage of. Hm. I wonder what mutt --- or wanderlust, which I'm trying out now --- would do with messages containing parts of files. You might be able to save something from each message but then be left with the problem of having to figure out how to put the pieces together. > English has its trade-offs, like most things. While it is a bit sloppy > and leaves a lot up to interpretation, that leads to lots of fun > double- or triple-entendres (which has benefits in the realms of > poetry, humor, and other forms of literature), and lets us use nouns > as verbs, among other things. By not requiring the speaker to make > distinctions about everything, it leaves a lot more room for > interpretation, which is both liberating and frustrating for the exact > same reason. That's probably true for other languages as well, in one way or another, to a greater or lesser extent. I wonder if there's a German translation of that RFCs --- it's probably extremely difficult to translate if the interpreter was to transcribe what it's supposed to mean to the full extent ... I've always been reading things like that in English, even when there was a translated version available. It's a lot easier because the translations ignore that the original originates from a totally different mindset, which makes them hard to understand and sometimes even incomprehensible. For example, there is no German word for "segmentation fault". It is not translatable not only because there isn't a word for it, there's also no concept for it. Interpreters confronted with the problem of translating it made something up, but it is nonsense. It's like trying to explain to a blind person what colors look like. When you watch German TV, you start asking yourself where you are because like half the words are English. They do that to make what they are saying to appear important, and the less they know what they are trying to say, the more English words they (ab-)use. It's really awful --- but nobody would ever say "segmentation fault".
