Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-161395-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 13:18:24 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Sending patches as eml message attachment?
Message-ID: <2024042844-disfigure-dose-e194@gregkh>
References: <Zi4bMx2FKuviJi0M@archie.me>
 <2024042828-occupier-confused-e046@gregkh>
 <221f6cfe-07c9-4fc0-a908-84276b8e4088@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <221f6cfe-07c9-4fc0-a908-84276b8e4088@gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:10:16PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 4/28/24 16:56, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 04:47:31PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> Sometimes I'm tempted to send patches as .eml attachments (just like in
> >> error messages sent by mail servers to me). Is patch submission by
> >> aforementioned way accepted?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> >> If not, why?
> > 
> > Why would they be?
> > 
> > Attachments don't usually work as you can not reply to them and comment
> > on the contents, right?  Try it yourself and see.
> > 
> 
> OK.
> 
> I experimented this by sending dummy patches to myself, as attachment.
> I replied to the patch using mutt and thunderbird. In mutt, the patch
> contents was quoted, whereas in the latter, it was missing. Hence,
> email clients are inconsistent on handling patch attachments.

That is true, which is why we say "do not attach patches".  It's as if
people assume we are new at this whole thing...

greg k-h