> -----Original Message-----
> From: listmaster@xenitec.on.ca [mailto:listmaster@xenitec.on.ca]On
> Behalf Of Bill Vermillion
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:35 AM
> To: distribution@xenitec.on.ca
> Subject: Re: Force mutt to encode
>
>
> In article <4fe558d8.0311050724.373abb73@posting.google.com >,
> Fabio Giannotti <fabiog@venmar.com> wrote:
> >Jean-Pierre Radley <jpr@jpr.com> wrote in message
> news:<20031103154312.GF19714@jpradley.jpr.com>...
> >> Fabio Giannotti typed (on Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:47:56PM +0000):
> >> |
> >> | > From: listmaster@xenitec.on.ca
> [mailto:listmaster@xenitec.on.ca]On
> >> | > Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Radley
> >> | > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 5:26 PM
> >> | > To: distribution@xenitec.on.ca; fabiog@venmar.com
> >> | > Subject: Re: Force mutt to encode
> >> | >
> >> | > Fabio Giannotti typed (on Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at
> 09:52:30PM +0000):
> >> | > | > From: listmaster@xenitec.on.ca
> >> [mailto:listmaster@xenitec.on.ca]On Behalf Of Bela Lubkin
> >> | > | > Fabio Giannotti wrote:
>
> >> | > | > > Is there anyway to force mutt to base64 encode an >>
> >> | > | > > attachment even if it thinks it doesn't need to?
>
> >> | > | > A default binding on the "compose" menu is:
>
> >> | > | > ^E edit-encoding edit attachment
> transfer-encoding
>
> >> | > | Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, my question
> >> | > | was >> not worded well. I should have added "from the
> >> | > | command line" to it!
> >> | > |
> >> | > | That is, is there any way from the command line to force
> >> | > | >> mutt to encode an attachment.
>
> >> | > | If anyone is interested, I have found a bit of a problem
> >> | > | with mutt. It decides that PDF files should be sent
> >> | > | with a transfer encoding of quoted-printable instead of
> >> | > | base64.
>
> >> | > Have you a ~/.mime.types files, or a system-wide one,
> >> which contains:
>
> >> | > application/pdf pdf
>
> >> | > ?
>
> >> | > See para. 5.2 of the Mutt help file for the possible paths to a
> >> | > system-wide mime.types file.
>
> >> | Yes, I have a mime.types file, and the attachement is
> >> | correctly being identified as a PDF. The problem is that
> >> | mutt has decided that PDFs should | be quote-printable, not
> >> | base64.
>
> >> Not here. I just sent myself a pdf file, and I clearly see:
>
> >> [-- Attachment #2: univ.pdf --]
> >> [-- Type: application/pdf, Encoding: base64, Size: 343K --]
> >> Content-Type: application/pdf
> >> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="univ.pdf"
> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
> >> FWIW, I'm using Mutt 1.5.4i.
>
> [I think I got the attribs right as at least one mailer wrapped
> weirdly - wjv]
>
> >Ok, I've made a somewhat interesting discovery and thought I'd share
> >it with the group.
>
> >It seems that mutt guesses PDFs to be either base64 or
> >quoted-printable depending on what it sees in the file.
>
> Guesses?

Yes, it guesses. As far as I can tell, it tries to determine if the
encoding is base64 or quoted-printable based on some algorithm that looks at
the data in the file. It is correctly identifying both files as PDFs. (The
mime header for each is "application/pdf".

>
> What does 'file' show on the differing files.
> I don't know if mutt used the 'magic' files but I would think
> any well-behaved application would do so.

"file" on both shows them to be a PDF. MIME header on both show it to be
"application/pdf".

>
> >PDFs I create with ImageMagick all show up as quoted-printable, PDFs
> >created with Adobe all get base64 encoded. Weird huh?
>
> And what does the first line of those files indicate.
>
>
> You should see PDF-1.2 or PDF-1.3 followed by others.
> Do the ImageMagick files look the same.
>

First line of both is %PDF-1.2


> >In addtion to mutt problems, PDFs created with ImageMagick
> get garbled
> >by Outlook and OE when forwarding even if they were manually base64
> >encoded.
>
> Fits with the above.

Yup, apparently Mutt and Outlook are using a similar algorithm.
Unfortunately, Outlook decides to mess with the contents instead of just
leaving them alone like mutt does!

>
> Just idle thoughts.
>
> Bill

Again, I say "Weird, huh?"

Fabio

In article <001101c3a3c9$116cc1c0$6700000a@venmar.com>,
Fabio Giannotti <fabiog@venmar.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: listmaster@xenitec.on.ca [mailto:listmaster@xenitec.on.ca]On
>> Behalf Of Bill Vermillion
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 10:35 AM
>> To: distribution@xenitec.on.ca
>> Subject: Re: Force mutt to encode
>>
>>
>> In article <4fe558d8.0311050724.373abb73@posting.google.com >,
>> Fabio Giannotti <fabiog@venmar.com> wrote:
>> >Jean-Pierre Radley <jpr@jpr.com> wrote in message
>> news:<20031103154312.GF19714@jpradley.jpr.com>...
>> >> Fabio Giannotti typed (on Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:47:56PM +0000):
>> >> |
>> >> | > From: listmaster@xenitec.on.ca
>> [mailto:listmaster@xenitec.on.ca]On
>> >> | > Behalf Of Jean-Pierre Radley
>> >> | > Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 5:26 PM
>> >> | > To: distribution@xenitec.on.ca; fabiog@venmar.com
>> >> | > Subject: Re: Force mutt to encode
>> >> | >
>> >> | > Fabio Giannotti typed (on Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at
>> 09:52:30PM +0000):
>> >> | > | > From: listmaster@xenitec.on.ca
>> >> [mailto:listmaster@xenitec.on.ca]On Behalf Of Bela Lubkin
>> >> | > | > Fabio Giannotti wrote:
>>
>> >> | > | > > Is there anyway to force mutt to base64 encode an >>
>> >> | > | > > attachment even if it thinks it doesn't need to?
>>
>> >> | > | > A default binding on the "compose" menu is:
>>
>> >> | > | > ^E edit-encoding edit attachment
>> transfer-encoding
>>
>> >> | > | Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, my question
>> >> | > | was >> not worded well. I should have added "from the
>> >> | > | command line" to it!
>> >> | > |
>> >> | > | That is, is there any way from the command line to force
>> >> | > | >> mutt to encode an attachment.
>>
>> >> | > | If anyone is interested, I have found a bit of a problem
>> >> | > | with mutt. It decides that PDF files should be sent
>> >> | > | with a transfer encoding of quoted-printable instead of
>> >> | > | base64.
>>
>> >> | > Have you a ~/.mime.types files, or a system-wide one,
>> >> which contains:
>>
>> >> | > application/pdf pdf
>>
>> >> | > ?
>>
>> >> | > See para. 5.2 of the Mutt help file for the possible paths to a
>> >> | > system-wide mime.types file.
>>
>> >> | Yes, I have a mime.types file, and the attachement is
>> >> | correctly being identified as a PDF. The problem is that
>> >> | mutt has decided that PDFs should | be quote-printable, not
>> >> | base64.
>>
>> >> Not here. I just sent myself a pdf file, and I clearly see:
>>
>> >> [-- Attachment #2: univ.pdf --]
>> >> [-- Type: application/pdf, Encoding: base64, Size: 343K --]
>> >> Content-Type: application/pdf
>> >> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="univ.pdf"
>> >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>>
>> >> FWIW, I'm using Mutt 1.5.4i.
>>
>> [I think I got the attribs right as at least one mailer wrapped
>> weirdly - wjv]
>>
>> >Ok, I've made a somewhat interesting discovery and thought I'd share
>> >it with the group.

>> >It seems that mutt guesses PDFs to be either base64 or
>> >quoted-printable depending on what it sees in the file.

>> Guesses?

>Yes, it guesses. As far as I can tell, it tries to determine
>if the encoding is base64 or quoted-printable based on some
>algorithm that looks at the data in the file. It is correctly
>identifying both files as PDFs. (The mime header for each is
>"application/pdf".

That's not good.


>> What does 'file' show on the differing files.
>> I don't know if mutt used the 'magic' files but I would think
>> any well-behaved application would do so.

>"file" on both shows them to be a PDF. MIME header on both show
>"it to be application/pdf".

>> >PDFs I create with ImageMagick all show up as quoted-printable, PDFs
>> >created with Adobe all get base64 encoded. Weird huh?

>> And what does the first line of those files indicate.


>> You should see PDF-1.2 or PDF-1.3 followed by others.
>> Do the ImageMagick files look the same.

>First line of both is %PDF-1.2

Shoots down that thought I had.

Perhaps going to www.mutt.org might point you to something, or a
link to someone who can answer this. Or comp.mail.mutt

>Yup, apparently Mutt and Outlook are using a similar algorithm.
>Unfortunately, Outlook decides to mess with the contents instead
>of just leaving them alone like mutt does!

Another reason I tend to dislike and distrust MS products.

>Again, I say "Weird, huh?"

Yup.

Bill


--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

Bill Vermillion wrote:

> In article <001101c3a3c9$116cc1c0$6700000a@venmar.com>,
> Fabio Giannotti <fabiog@venmar.com> wrote:

> >> >It seems that mutt guesses PDFs to be either base64 or
> >> >quoted-printable depending on what it sees in the file.
>
> >> Guesses?
>
> >Yes, it guesses. As far as I can tell, it tries to determine
> >if the encoding is base64 or quoted-printable based on some
> >algorithm that looks at the data in the file. It is correctly
> >identifying both files as PDFs. (The mime header for each is
> >"application/pdf".
>
> That's not good.

Actually it's fine. lookOut isn't having trouble with the encoding,
it's garbling the contents. Fabio already said that even when he forced
Mutt to use base64, the same garbling occurred.

Mutt isn't _guessing_, it's _choosing_. A mailer chooses an encoding
based on what standards it supports, and which encoding is most
efficient for the particular thing being sent. An encoding of "7bit" is
most efficient for pure ASCII text; "quoted-printable" is most efficient
for nearly pure ASCII text with a few high bit characters; "base64" is
most efficient for binary gibberish. As long as the _contents_ of the
message come through cleanly, which encoding was used should make no
difference to the receiving mailer. Which is exactly what Fabio's
testing showed.

> >> >PDFs I create with ImageMagick all show up as quoted-printable, PDFs
> >> >created with Adobe all get base64 encoded. Weird huh?

I suggest copying one each of these files to Windows using some
completely different method (scp or ftp) and seeing whether they display
correctly. Then mailing them somewhere else using lookOut and again
testing whether they get garbled by that. It sounds more like lookOut
just simply garbles ImageMagick PDFs, for unknown reasons. Nothing to
do with Mutt.

>Bela<