|
 |
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> What a great argument. It is not web clients, it is *every* newsreader that
> has to do guessing where attachments start if a message is not in MIME
> multipart format.
I'm still not understanding why you'd expect the newsreader to ignore a
content-type of text/plain but obey a content-type of multipart/*?
> And newsreaders (if they are web based or not) would do
> you no favour if they would only display 5% of messages, because that is
> about the percentage of that correctly follow the MIME standard for
> attachments.
I find that most all messages either post correct MIME, or leave off the
mime headers, at which point the client tries to guess based on content.
I find that the clients that try to guess content in spite of MIME
headers saying what the content are are the clients that are
traditionally most heinously insecure because of that, which is why I
don't use them.
On the other hand, Mozilla 1.6 (arguably one of the popular clients)
doesn't understand begin-base64, so the point is moot.
> Excuse me? Did you ever notice that most people here post images together
> with some comment what the image is or some specific question?
Sure. Does that mean I bothered to look to see where they're posting it
from? :-) It wasn't an accusation, it was a question.
> The text character set encoding.
OK. I'm boggled by the concept that a client should, based on the
protocol used to retrieve the message, obey a content-type multipart/*,
ignore *half* of the content-type text/plain, and ... um ... what about
other content types? What would you do?
> The catch is, if you
> just put in a Content-Type header without claiming a message to be
> compatible with MIME, some newsreaders will ignore the
> Content-Type header
> completely also many will still interpret it correctly.
But you want them to ignore half the content type, apparently? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA USA (PST)
I am in geosynchronous orbit, supported by
a quantum photon exchange drive....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
