* RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests?(fwd)
2000-12-30 6:08 RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests?(fwd) Gerald Pfeifer
@ 2000-05-30 13:03 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2000-12-30 6:08 ` RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Jason Molenda
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2000-05-30 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
A few days ago I forwarded another message by David, which Jason and/or
Jeff were so kind to have a look at; perhaps the following provides the
crucial hint?
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Presberg <David.Presberg@conexant.com>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: David.Presberg@conexant.com, gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:59:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been
digests?
Gerald --
Hmmm. Note the following (?) randomness:
D gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.o 24May 08:29 941/31837
"gcc Digest 24 May 2000 08:29:36 -0000 Issue 674"
T gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org 25May 12:03 1469/52200
"gcc Digest 25 May 2000 12:03:47 -0000 Issue 675"
T gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org 26May 10:52 1269/45209
"gcc Digest 26 May 2000 10:52:18 -0000 Issue 676"
T gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org 27May 18:12 1193/40599
"gcc Digest 27 May 2000 18:12:10 -0000 Issue 677"
D gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.o 28May 14:16 1126/35666
"gcc Digest 28 May 2000 14:16:49 -0000 Issue 678"
D gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.o 29May 15:20 1056/36941
"gcc Digest 29 May 2000 15:20:23 -0000 Issue 679"
T* gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org 30May 15:30 1450/55179
"gcc Digest 30 May 2000 15:30:32 -0000 Issue 680"
where:
"D" == (proper digest). "T" == "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii".
but:
"T*" == "Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
Boundary="0__=882568EF005567FF8f9e8a93df938690918c882568EF005567FF".
which latter is still not a proper digest-form email.
And only the proper digests have the extra header-lines that explain
about getting off the list, etc.
[...]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
2000-12-30 6:08 ` RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Jason Molenda
@ 2000-05-31 13:52 ` Jason Molenda
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Molenda @ 2000-05-31 13:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: overseers
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 10:03:38PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> A few days ago I forwarded another message by David, which Jason and/or
> Jeff were so kind to have a look at; perhaps the following provides the
> crucial hint?
>
I'll be honest - I don't have a clue. I know next to nothing about
how ezmlm constructs its digests. Maybe it has something to do
with the messages in the archive? I don't know.
ezmlm-get(1) says the following. No -f option is being specified for
the gcc list, so the default (m) should be the one used. From
/qmail/lists-gcc/gcc/editor:
|/qmail/ezmlm/ezmlm-get '/qmail/lists-gcc/gcc' || exit 0
From the man page:
-f is an optional format specifier for -get, -thread, and
-dig requests. It is allowed, but ignored for -index
requests. Currently, the following are allowed:
r rfc1153. This is a ``plain'' non-MIME format for
dumb clients.
m (Default.) MIME multipart/digest with a subset of
ordered headers sorted. Currently, the following
headers are included in the order listed: Date:,
To:, From:, Reply-To:, Cc:, MIME-Version:, Content-
Type:, Message-ID:, and Keywords:. This can be
customized with the optional file dir/digheaders,
which should contain the desired headers up to but
not including the colon.
The format is no longer compliant with rfc1153, as
the rfc1153 format is incompatible with rfc2046,
which which the format is (should be) compatible.
x MIXED: This is the same as the default MIME format,
except that the Content-Type is multipart/mixed.
This helps circumnavigate a Pine bug: when the
digest is content-transfer-encoded, Pine will
refuse to display the initial text/plain part of a
multipart/digest message, but display the same part
of a multipart/mixed message. Some MUAs for some
strange reason treat the two multipart formats
differently. In some cases, ``x'' works better than
``m''.
v VIRGIN: This is MIME multipart/digest with messages
returned without any header filtering.
n NATIVE: This is VIRGIN format without threading,
i.e. messages are presented in numerical order and
the message index is suppressed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd)
2000-12-30 6:08 RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests?(fwd) Gerald Pfeifer
2000-05-30 13:03 ` Gerald Pfeifer
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 ` Jason Molenda
2000-05-31 13:52 ` Jason Molenda
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jason Molenda @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gerald Pfeifer; +Cc: overseers
On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 10:03:38PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> A few days ago I forwarded another message by David, which Jason and/or
> Jeff were so kind to have a look at; perhaps the following provides the
> crucial hint?
>
I'll be honest - I don't have a clue. I know next to nothing about
how ezmlm constructs its digests. Maybe it has something to do
with the messages in the archive? I don't know.
ezmlm-get(1) says the following. No -f option is being specified for
the gcc list, so the default (m) should be the one used. From
/qmail/lists-gcc/gcc/editor:
|/qmail/ezmlm/ezmlm-get '/qmail/lists-gcc/gcc' || exit 0
From the man page:
-f is an optional format specifier for -get, -thread, and
-dig requests. It is allowed, but ignored for -index
requests. Currently, the following are allowed:
r rfc1153. This is a ``plain'' non-MIME format for
dumb clients.
m (Default.) MIME multipart/digest with a subset of
ordered headers sorted. Currently, the following
headers are included in the order listed: Date:,
To:, From:, Reply-To:, Cc:, MIME-Version:, Content-
Type:, Message-ID:, and Keywords:. This can be
customized with the optional file dir/digheaders,
which should contain the desired headers up to but
not including the colon.
The format is no longer compliant with rfc1153, as
the rfc1153 format is incompatible with rfc2046,
which which the format is (should be) compatible.
x MIXED: This is the same as the default MIME format,
except that the Content-Type is multipart/mixed.
This helps circumnavigate a Pine bug: when the
digest is content-transfer-encoded, Pine will
refuse to display the initial text/plain part of a
multipart/digest message, but display the same part
of a multipart/mixed message. Some MUAs for some
strange reason treat the two multipart formats
differently. In some cases, ``x'' works better than
``m''.
v VIRGIN: This is MIME multipart/digest with messages
returned without any header filtering.
n NATIVE: This is VIRGIN format without threading,
i.e. messages are presented in numerical order and
the message index is suppressed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests?(fwd)
@ 2000-12-30 6:08 Gerald Pfeifer
2000-05-30 13:03 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2000-12-30 6:08 ` RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Jason Molenda
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2000-12-30 6:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: overseers
A few days ago I forwarded another message by David, which Jason and/or
Jeff were so kind to have a look at; perhaps the following provides the
crucial hint?
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Presberg <David.Presberg@conexant.com>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Cc: David.Presberg@conexant.com, gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:59:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been
digests?
Gerald --
Hmmm. Note the following (?) randomness:
D gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.o 24May 08:29 941/31837
"gcc Digest 24 May 2000 08:29:36 -0000 Issue 674"
T gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org 25May 12:03 1469/52200
"gcc Digest 25 May 2000 12:03:47 -0000 Issue 675"
T gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org 26May 10:52 1269/45209
"gcc Digest 26 May 2000 10:52:18 -0000 Issue 676"
T gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org 27May 18:12 1193/40599
"gcc Digest 27 May 2000 18:12:10 -0000 Issue 677"
D gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.o 28May 14:16 1126/35666
"gcc Digest 28 May 2000 14:16:49 -0000 Issue 678"
D gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.o 29May 15:20 1056/36941
"gcc Digest 29 May 2000 15:20:23 -0000 Issue 679"
T* gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org 30May 15:30 1450/55179
"gcc Digest 30 May 2000 15:30:32 -0000 Issue 680"
where:
"D" == (proper digest). "T" == "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii".
but:
"T*" == "Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
Boundary="0__=882568EF005567FF8f9e8a93df938690918c882568EF005567FF".
which latter is still not a proper digest-form email.
And only the proper digests have the extra header-lines that explain
about getting off the list, etc.
[...]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-12-30 6:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2000-12-30 6:08 RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests?(fwd) Gerald Pfeifer
2000-05-30 13:03 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2000-12-30 6:08 ` RE2: Re: Why have the prior 2 "gcc Digest" emails *not* been digests? (fwd) Jason Molenda
2000-05-31 13:52 ` Jason Molenda
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).