-----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@xxxxxxxx> 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/
