9 Dec
2003
9 Dec
'03
9:39 a.m.
Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com> wrote:
So do I -- "be generous in what you accept and
strict in what you
create" or similar words. On the other hand, RFC1049 doesn't allow the
"Content-type:" that Tony's mail contains, nor does RFC822, and as you
imply, Tony's mail isn't MIME-compliant -- so it's broken too.
Content-type: was something of a mess for a while; I remember the RFC
822 extensions group going round on it for a while on the way to
hashing out what became MIME.
(plays with google a bit) Ah good, someone kept the ietf-822 mailing
list traffic from the early 1990s.
<http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/old-archive1/msg00001.html> for an
example. I gather from that that there was an RFC draft in the early
1990s in which "Content-type: text" was permitted, and that by that
time it was considered ambiguous.
-Frank McConnell