Re: recommended mail clients [was] [PATCH] ati-agp suspend/resume support (try 2)

["Jason Munro" <jason@stdbev.com>]

On 4:26:17 pm 26 Dec 2005 Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>  I use pine and evolution.  Pine is text based and great when I
> >>  ssh into my machine to work.  Evolution is slow, but plays well
> >>  with pine and it handles things needed for LKML very well. (the
> >>  drop down menu "Normal" may be changed to "Preformat", which
> >>  allows of inserting text files "as-is").
> >
> > Dare I say it, KMail has also been doing the Right Thing for a long
> > time. It will only line wrap things that you insert by typing;
> > pastes are left untouched.
> >
> > This satisfies Linus's demand that all patches be part of the email
> > body and not an attachment.
>
>
> Do not always blame the MUA, because actually, the MTAs may do
> anything with the mail text. That's (among other reasons) why things
> like MIME attachments were invented, because they (their respective
> uuencoded or base64encoded "text") can be wrapped but does not change
> the decoded form.  - Something like that is in the pine doc.

So which is preferable for someone handling inline patches. A properly
encoded message text that when decoded with a compliant client accurately
represents the original text (no whitespace mangling etc), or a message
text that is accurate in it's raw state but may be altered during transit?


\__  Jason Munro
 \__ jason@stdbev.com
  \__ http://hastymail.sourceforge.net/