On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 12:04:35 -0400
Tom Neff <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I've said this here before, but since the question's on the floor:
> "MIME Digests" stink.
> RFC1153 is the way to go. Plain text, space saving, a single
> daily read.
And handles MIME messages as components poorly to the point of
unusability -- and this doesn't even necessarily mean MIME
attachments, but also encludes character sets, and base64 encoding
of non-latin messages.
> "MIME Digests" save almost no space, they introduce all kinds of
> binary crap, they're handled spectacularly inconsistently by mail
The argument on space is questionable. It is perfectly legit for
the message/rfc822 part encluded by a MIME digest to have heavily
trimmed headers -- even trimmed as heavily (data, subject, to,
from) as most RFC 1153 digests. Given such trimming, which a couple
of MIME digest MLMs do (Mailman used to), the difference in physical
size is minimal.
ObNote: Mailman no longer does header trimming (it used to, but I
successfully campaigned for full headers.
MIME digests introduce no "binary crap" that was not present in the
original list messages. If you get such data on your lists, you'll
get them in your digests. The difference being that with MIME
digests you'll be able to read/display such data, and with text
digests it will just be inlined crap.
> ... and they are a solution in search of a problem. Anyone who
> can profitably dealt with a "MIME Digest" could just as well handle
> the single-message flow.
I've asked most of my digest members why they use digests (I tend to
think them rather useless), and the main reasons that came back were
in decreasing order:
-- Easier to read
-- No so distracting as mail coming in all day while I'm working
-- My mail client doesn't filter mail
On the technical side what annoys me is that so few MUAs support
J C Lawrence email@example.com
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--