[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[OT] Re: Those damn army brats!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 02 August 2001 20:20, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
> > > Yes, actually, his message was perfectly MIME compliant. Read
> > > the source.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > OK, please show me the RFC that defines application/ms-tnef :-)
>
> You might want to be silent instead of sounding foolish.
>
> application/ms-tnef is the type of data within a segment of the MIME
> message.
Of course.
> The message is MIME compliant -- perfectly so. It began and ended
> with proper MIME separators and defined the data types of each of the
> sections of the message, including the plaintext version your mail
> reader should have presented you with.
Yes, this is correct.
> If I'm not mistaken, the
> ms-tnef section may have even been
> labelled as alternative content; not as an attachment.
>
Here you are wrong. It's actually multipart/mixed. He attached an
example program or something like that. But instead of using the MIME
way (attaching single files in a nested multipart/mixed or
multipart/related body part), he used the Win way: application/ms-tnef,
which KMail, being a compliant MIME mailer, interprets as
application/octet-stream.
This is where my criticism started (that I can't read the attachment
because it's some win-proprietary stuff instead of plain MIME).
> MIME compliance has _nothing_ to do with the data inside the MIME
> sections if they are properly separated and labelled.
Also this is correct.
> Your complaint
> is likely that his mail
> reader sends a second copy of the E-mail in a non-ASCII format;
> properly MIME encapsulated.
No, it's that he sends attachments in a win-proprietary format instead
of in multiparts's (I must admit that I haven't got a clue about what
application/ms-tnef is; I guess it's some kind of archive format or so).
> If so, that is a potentially valid
> complaint, but has little to
> nothing to do with its MIME compliance.
>
I must admit that labelling it "not MIME compliant" was a bit
oversimplified. Please excuse me. I hope I have made clear what I
meant, now.
> Why don't _you_ read the RFCs?
I have. Bet that I have ;-)
> --
> Michael T. Babcock
> CTO, FibreSpeed
<snip>
Marc
- --
Marc Mutz <Marc@Mutz.com>
http://marc.mutz.com/
http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/~mmutz/
http://EncryptionHOWTO.sourceforge.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7acCD3oWD+L2/6DgRAjLIAKDmXsxeFbbffBBGr8+TnWfwT1ePqQCgiLsd
QvBa59w4tX5tNLapT0ecuiA=
=cLv9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Linux-crypto: cryptography in and on the Linux system
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-crypto/