On Monday 28 November 2005 13:27, Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:52:15AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> I sent a second copy that hopefully is less mangled.  Did it make it
> >> through ok?
> >
> > By eye, both looked the same.
>
> Not entirely, the first not only munged the whitespace, it also
> word-wrapped the diff lines..
>
> The second only munged the whitespace.
>
> Sending patches as attachments is generally safer than inline when using
> GUI mail programs.

Inline is linux-kernel policy, but here the darn thing is as an attachment.  
(No, I seem to have no control whatsoever over the type of the attachment.  I 
have checkboxes for "compress, encrypt, and sign" though, in case I can't 
figure out how to do that to the actual file...)

I need to find a real mail client, it seems.

Rob