Re: patch attachments still unwelcome?

["Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 10:04:56AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > So the documentation in the kernel advising against sending
> > patch attachments seems hypocritical.  Changing the kernel docs
> > allow patch attachments could be a good start to making life
> > easier for contributors without SMTP or IMAP access.
> 
> It's not hypocritical, as lots of email clients still get this wrong and
> make responding to attachments almost impossible.  Many do get it right,
> but trying to document the differences here is quite difficult (I tried
> once, gave up as it was a mess).
> 
> > Are many MUAs still incapable of handling them?
> > mutt shows text patches inline, at least.
> 
> For most MUAs that send them, yes, but not for all.  I know of at least
> 2 that send text attachments in formats that mutt will not show it
> inline, nor allow responding to them properly.  MacOS Mail is one easy
> example to point to as getting this totally wrong.
> 
> So, if you know what you are doing, yes, this is fine, but it's still a
> good idea to say "please do not do this" to make it easier for people
> just starting out.

Perhaps we should explicitly explain this and then include a white
list of MUA's that can send text attachments safely/correctly?  (e.g.,
if you are using the following MUA's, using text attachments are OK;
if you are using the following MUA's, it will definitely NOT work;
with all others, proceed with caution.)

					- Ted