You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is almost equal to what I produce, except that you use both :content and :body, and :type for both :content-type and :content-disposition, why? Are they interchangeable, or is there a difference?
An example message of mine, which is a rather straightforward conversion:
I use :body because that's the RFC822-ish way to refer to whatever is not part of the headers. When I switch to MIME context I begin thinking in terms of content. The reason for only having :content and :type is that between those two values I can provide a MIME library what it needs to know. It is a string? OK, what kind of string? If it's a file I can figure out the mimetype for myself and then you just need to tell me if you want it inlined or attached.
It's possible this is too much magic and it would be easier to not have those things conflated. I haven't found that to be true yet.
I'm working on an IMAP wrapper that I'd like to integrate with Postal later on, but there are a few incompatibilities or inconsistencies.
For a multipart message, you suggest
This is almost equal to what I produce, except that you use both :content and :body, and :type for both :content-type and :content-disposition, why? Are they interchangeable, or is there a difference?
An example message of mine, which is a rather straightforward conversion:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: