On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:51:23AM -0600, Travis Pouarz wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Jack Repenning wrote:
>> > On Dec 26, 2008, at 1:25 AM, Chris Foote wrote:
>> >> To add more woe to this, it appears that attachments are totally
>> >> removed from the emails when in the digest mode.
>> > Uh ... they should be, shouldn't they? I mean, in this particular
>> > case where there's text being misstreated as attachments, it would
>> > be nice to leave 'em in, but in general attachments within
>> > "digests" would be bogus, right?
>> No, it's not bogus. Digest users may well want to see the entire
>> messages, but just receive them batched up as one large email message
>> a day rather than 100 smaller ones. Removing attachments is,
>> especially for a list like this one where they are used so
>> critically, may well be the wrong thing to do. Giving Digest users
>> the option to have attachments preserved or stripped would be seem to
>> me a good thing to do since different digest users may have different
>> objectives when electing the digest option.
> I agree, this list is no use in digest mode if attachments like
> patches and reproductions scripts are stripped off.
Doesn't each message now have a direct link to the archives where you
could get the attachment? I'd think not including the attachments
would be a good thing for everyone.
Received on 2009-01-06 14:27:58 CET