Does this message come across:
- with an HTML part?
- base64-encoded?
Thanks.
Daniel
[Test 1 of 3: w/ chars; UTF-8]
Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> Mark Allums wrote:
> > Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> >
> > > [...] could
> > > > be said for your HTML-spewing MUA.
> > >
> > > What that heck are you talking about? My message was sent in plain
> > > text, not
> > > HTML.
> >
> > It's a dual-format message en
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 16:52 -0400, Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 10:03 -0400, Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> >> Paul Johnson wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote:
> >>>
> I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting
>
Mark Allums wrote:
> Barclay, Daniel wrote:
>
> > [...] could
> > > be said for your HTML-spewing MUA.
> >
> > What that heck are you talking about? My message was sent in plain
> > text, not
> > HTML.
>
> It's a dual-format message encoded in MIME base64 format.
Where the heck are you
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 04:03:04PM -0500, Mark Allums wrote:
> Hah!, my mail client is stupid, it responds in kind, so my last message
> (and this one, too) may have been sent in MIME and HTML as well. Sorry
No, no they haven't. :)
> about this, I will try to fix it, so that it won't happen ag
Mark Allums wrote:
Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> [...] could
> > be said for your HTML-spewing MUA.
>
> What that heck are you talking about? My message was sent in plain
> text, not
> HTML.
It's a dual-format message encoded in MIME base64 format. So, two
things are wrong with the format
Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> [...] could
> > be said for your HTML-spewing MUA.
>
> What that heck are you talking about? My message was sent in plain
> text, not
> HTML.
It's a dual-format message encoded in MIME base64 format. So, two
things are wrong with the format of your message. One, it'
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 10:03 -0400, Barclay, Daniel wrote:
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote:
>>>
I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting
>> at. If
aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong.
>
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:29:57PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > On 2008-07-02 16:40 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:26AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL
> > > P
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 05:35:11PM +0200, Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> On 2008-07-02 16:40 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:26AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> >> I put the apt-get and aptitude code up s
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 10:03 -0400, Barclay, Daniel wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote:
> >
> >> I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting
> at. If
> >> aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong.
> >
> > I understood it,
On 2008-07-02 16:40 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:26AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
>> I put the apt-get and aptitude code up side-by-side and I can only see
>> one difference in the conditions they use to determine whether to clea
On 2008-07-02 15:39 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> A secondary reason is that I can't figure out what's going on, because
> whenever I try taking my network down and running an update, my package
> lists are still around afterwards.
Hm, just a few hours ago I tried that experiment and aptitude
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:39:26AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> I put the apt-get and aptitude code up side-by-side and I can only see
> one difference in the conditions they use to determine whether to clean
> the lists. I don't see why this would matter (surel
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote:
>
>> I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting at. If
>> aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong.
>
> I understood it, but given that this is how apt has always worked and is
> documented to
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:01 +0800, Magicloud wrote:
>> I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does
>> not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know.
>
> That's by far the most round logic I've heard tonight.
What on earth are
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 11:09:18AM +0300, Andrei Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Not really. See #201842 and #479620. Unfortunately Daniel Burrows still
> didn't comment on them. Maybe he will show up here?
The main reason I haven't touched those bugs is that there are many
mor
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 02:01:44PM +0800, Magicloud wrote:
> I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does
> not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know. This gives
> it no right to erease all information stored locally.
> It is like, if my mobile was
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:41:09AM +, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote:
>
> > I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting at. If
> > aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong.
>
> I understood it, but given that this is how a
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 16:19 +1000, CaT wrote:
> I believe that would be the point the original poster was getting at. If
> aptitude is really doing that then it is in the wrong.
I understood it, but given that this is how apt has always worked and is
documented to work, why change it now? Appare
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:33 +0800, Magicloud wrote:
> >On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:01 +0800, Magicloud wrote:
> >> I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely
> >> does not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know.
>
> >That's by far the most round logic I'
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 06:06:56AM +, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:01 +0800, Magicloud wrote:
> > I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does
> > not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know.
>
> That's by far the most round log
>On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:01 +0800, Magicloud wrote:
>> I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely
>> does not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know.
>That's by far the most round logic I've heard tonight. If it can't reach
the repository to know ab
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 14:01 +0800, Magicloud wrote:
> I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does
> not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know.
That's by far the most round logic I've heard tonight. If it can't
reach the repository to know about t
I don't think so. Obviously, if the network is broken, it absolutely does
not mean that there is NO packages, just aptitude can not know. This gives
it no right to erease all information stored locally.
It is like, if my mobile was broken today, my wife could not contact with
me, so she should thin
25 matches
Mail list logo
