Outlook Sux (Was: [2.6 patch] dpt_i2o fix for deadlock condition)

["Salyzyn, Mark" <mark_salyzyn@adaptec.com>]

From: Adrian Bunk [mailto:bunk@stusta.de] writes: 
>> There must still be a way to tell outlook to make the type something 
>> useful, rather than application/octet-stream.  maybe if the extension

>> was .patch.txt it would do something smarter.
> Patches in Attachments aren't nice, but better than corrupted patches.

:-)

Part of the problem is cut-n-paste engines on M$ and preservation of
content, the other part of the problem is the MUA making up it's own
rules on what constitutes a text document. It is not the MTA, sendmail
is blameless.

> It's unfortunate, but bitching on the people who are somehow forced to

> use crappy email clients is IMHO not a good idea.

We could always require that if a patch is done as an attachment, that
if it is smaller than 2K and/or at the submitters option, it also be
present as in-line content for code review convenience?

Thanks for that defense, I appreciate it. I am trapped in corporate
policy and MIS monitoring requirements. I have tried to make our MIS
department miserable over this issue, the sheer quantity of attempts to
mitigate is boggling and is still open. If I was paranoid, I'd almost
believe that M$ specifically decided to ignore RFC822 and all it's
children just to make it an impossible tool to use for submitting Linux
patches.

Now, if *someone* had an idea how I could configure Outlook 2002 to
properly produce in-line patches *that* would earn my eternal gratitude
(or a single stay at Hotel Salyzyn when visiting the Orlando Mouse House
;-> ). Outlook 2003 gets worse still by corrupting attachments (!) and I
thus reverted back to 2002.

Sincerely -- Mark Salyzyn
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/