Message-ID:	<20010131100926.14055.qmail@lauras.lt>
From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date:	Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:09:26 +0200
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	Prashant Ramachandra <rprash AT wilco-int DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Binary rubbish
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	Prashant Ramachandra <rprash AT wilco-int DOT com>
References:	<B5E044AF4430D311B24D0060089CD8B1023ECC8B AT hydmail01 DOT hyd DOT wilco-int DOT com> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010131113336 DOT 29266d-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.12i
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010131113336.29266d-100000@is>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:34:36AM +0200
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:34:36AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Any decent mailer will _not_ handle attachments well, if by ``well'' you 
> mean automatic decoding and saving of the attachment.  You might just 
> launch a virus on your machine.

I think nobody calls automatic execution of attachments ``a good handling''
nowadays. IMHO a good handling means simply recognizing attachments and
providing ways to view them without feeding entire message to uuedecode
or the like. So my Mutt handles attachments well, for example ;-)

Laurynas

- Raw text -