On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 09:35:28AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:33 AM Luck, Tony <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 09:02:36AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > At least with Outlook the problem is partly that Outlook's model of how
> > > e-mail works isn't really able to cope with what we need, it translates
> > > everything into internal formats in a way that is at best fragile for
> > > what we need.

> > Or, shock, horror, tell one-time contributors that it is OK to
> > put the patch in an attachment to the e-mail.  Outlook doesn't
> > (usually) mess with the contents of attachments.

> And then have maintainer having hard time trying to comment on said
> patch in the attachment. I'd rather not.

Right, that can be an issue - things usually make it through without
modification which is good but depending on the e-mail client it can be
a pain to review, especially if the patch ends up not being given a text
MIME type.  It is doable but it's not great.  It also doesn't scale well
in cases where it's a company that's actively engaging and sending a lot
of stuff and participating in discussions.