Michael J Gruber wrote: > Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 13.02.2009 05:19: >> I do not think of a reason, other than to trigger the workaround you >> mentioned in the documentation part of the patch, why any sane user would >> want to send a patch as HTML. This configuration variable sounds more >> like "imap.forceThunderbirdToSendNonFlowedTextByExploitingItsBug" than >> "imap.html", in other words. With Michael's proviso well in hand (it's a feature, not a bug), I did want to say that I otherwise think this is a reasonable analysis. In fact, calling the option imap.thunderbird-fixed-html is arguably a better name. Finally, I know it's my patch, but for the record, I won't be hurt if it's round filed. You can make a clean case that not taking it in leaves pressure on the joint dev communities to find a better solution. But the only better approach I can imagine is if Thunderbird were to respect a 'format=fixed' injected in a message body. However, as I think about that, I believe a correct Thunderbird implementation of that would require having a per message setting for format. The Thunderbird team is very reluctant to expose any UI on f=f (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86607), so having a per message UI element certainly sounds like a dead idea walking :-/. Cheers, Jeremy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
