gmail vs. "text/html"

gmail vs. "text/html"

[Benjamin Kosnik]

Yo people. There seems to be some kind of config change on sourceware
sites, where I can no longer send email to the usual gcc lists with a
patch attachment from gmail.

I keep getting bounced, with the reason being an attachment of
"text/html" type being given as the reason.


<libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>:
Invalid mime type "text/html" detected in message text or
attachment.  Please send plain text messages only.
See http://sourceware.org/lists.html#sourceware-list-info for mailing
list info for this site.
Contact libstdc++-owner@gcc.gnu.org if you have questions about this.
(#5.7.2)

 Is there a way to name patches for attachment such that it
will work? Is there any other way around this? I've tried the usual
patch suffixes in the hopes that they would magically work, but ".txt"
and ".patch" don't seem to do the job either.

Is there a way to work around this in gmail?

?

-benjamin

Re: gmail vs. "text/html"

[Per Bothner]

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> Yo people. There seems to be some kind of config change on sourceware
> sites, where I can no longer send email to the usual gcc lists with a
> patch attachment from gmail.
> 
> I keep getting bounced, with the reason being an attachment of
> "text/html" type being given as the reason.
> 
> 
> <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>:
> Invalid mime type "text/html" detected in message text or
> attachment.  Please send plain text messages only.
> See http://sourceware.org/lists.html#sourceware-list-info for mailing
> list info for this site.
> Contact libstdc++-owner@gcc.gnu.org if you have questions about this.
> (#5.7.2)
> 
>  Is there a way to name patches for attachment such that it
> will work? Is there any other way around this? I've tried the usual
> patch suffixes in the hopes that they would magically work, but ".txt"
> and ".patch" don't seem to do the job either.
> 
> Is there a way to work around this in gmail?

Maybe gzipping the file works?

(The reasons for forbidding appropriately-scrubbed HTML messages
seem a bit last-century ...  For example worrying that an HTML message
is some trivial multiple larger than a plain-text message seems rather
silly these days.)
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/

Re: gmail vs. "text/html"

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 02:10:05PM -0600, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>Yo people. There seems to be some kind of config change on sourceware
>sites, where I can no longer send email to the usual gcc lists with a
>patch attachment from gmail.

Nope.  No config changes here.

cgf

Re: gmail vs. "text/html"

[Jonathan Larmour]

Per Bothner wrote:
> 
> (The reasons for forbidding appropriately-scrubbed HTML messages
> seem a bit last-century ...  

I think the issue there is "appropriately-scrubbed". I know mailman can do 
that, but we don't use mailman - the system load is high enough sometimes 
as it is. Besides, banning HTML has also acted as a good part of the spam 
filtering.

Jifl
-- 
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

Re: gmail vs. "text/html"

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> Nope.  No config changes here.

Huh. Maybe on the gmail side then. Sending patch attachments had
certainly been working before sometime last week.

-benjamin

Re: gmail vs. "text/html"

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 08:06:10PM -0600, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>Nope.  No config changes here.
>
>Huh.  Maybe on the gmail side then.  Sending patch attachments had
>certainly been working before sometime last week.

Can you send email with an attachment to postmaster@sourceware.org?  It
won't be html-bounced there and I can see if there is something odd with
the attachment.

cgf

Re: gmail vs. "text/html"

[Daniel Berlin]

Gmail didn't change anything here :)

On 12/17/07, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Nope.  No config changes here.
>
> Huh. Maybe on the gmail side then. Sending patch attachments had
> certainly been working before sometime last week.
>
> -benjamin
>