On 11.08.11,15:30, Camaleón wrote: > Hello, > > I'm facing a curious problem when I send attachments with Mutt from > command line. > > I have a small self-made script that basically makes two things: > > 1/ Given a big file (~10/20 MiB), it splits into small chunks of data > (~250 KiB) > > 2/ Then it sends the resulting files using Mutt (each file is attached > per message, so if there are 10 files Mutt sends 10 messages) > > I have to do this in order to send a chap programs and documents I > download from the web because he does not have access to Internet, only > to his e-mail account (which is also very restricted, limited to 512 KiB/ > message). > > All the process works fine but some of the files are wrongly encoded > which results in an error when the user tries to reconstruct the big file > from the received attachments. > > For instance, I've noted that properly encoded attachments appear as > follows: > > *** > Content-Type: application/octet-stream > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=test0014 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > *** > > And bad ones are like this: > > *** > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=test0015 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > *** > > So I tried to deal with this in two ways: > > 1. Enforcing Mutt to use "Content-Type: application/octet-stream" when I > call it using the script (that is, "mutt -e 'set content_type=application/ > octet-stream' [...]) > > This works (I can see the body of the messages are encoded in that way) > but there are still some messages that encode the attachments as "text/ > plain". > > 2. I've also thought in using a "~/.mime.types" file but I dunno how to > do this, I mean, mime types relies on filenames extensions > (.pdf/.txt/.ogg) and splitted files have no extension (file000, file001, > file002, file003...). I could rename those to some fancy filename > (file001.file, etc...) but I think it's overwelming for the task. > > To be sincere, I'm not sure if the culprit here is the Gmail server (I > use my Gmail account to send the messages) because Mutt tends to do the > right things while Gmail is a bit... let's say "liberal" when it comes to > implement/interpret the standards :-) > > So I wonder what would be the best way to bypass this or if someone has > had a previous experience similar to this and can share his findings... > Any idea is very welcome. > > P.S. Using Mutt 1.5.18 (2008-05-17) >
What about putting the files in 2-3 zip files and send him? Also update to mutt 1.5.21 which have many bug fixes after 1.5.18. Jostein
