From: Adrian Bunk [mailto:bunk@xxxxxxxxx] writes: >> There must still be a way to tell outlook to make the type something >> useful, rather than application/octet-stream. maybe if the extension >> was .patch.txt it would do something smarter. > Patches in Attachments aren't nice, but better than corrupted patches. :-) Part of the problem is cut-n-paste engines on M$ and preservation of content, the other part of the problem is the MUA making up it's own rules on what constitutes a text document. It is not the MTA, sendmail is blameless. > It's unfortunate, but bitching on the people who are somehow forced to > use crappy email clients is IMHO not a good idea. We could always require that if a patch is done as an attachment, that if it is smaller than 2K and/or at the submitters option, it also be present as in-line content for code review convenience? Thanks for that defense, I appreciate it. I am trapped in corporate policy and MIS monitoring requirements. I have tried to make our MIS department miserable over this issue, the sheer quantity of attempts to mitigate is boggling and is still open. If I was paranoid, I'd almost believe that M$ specifically decided to ignore RFC822 and all it's children just to make it an impossible tool to use for submitting Linux patches. Now, if *someone* had an idea how I could configure Outlook 2002 to properly produce in-line patches *that* would earn my eternal gratitude (or a single stay at Hotel Salyzyn when visiting the Orlando Mouse House ;-> ). Outlook 2003 gets worse still by corrupting attachments (!) and I thus reverted back to 2002. Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
