9 Dec
2003
9 Dec
'03
8:37 a.m.
On Dec 9, 11:22, Frank McConnell wrote:
Paul Williams <paul(a)frixxon.co.uk> 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.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
Pete Turnbull wrote:
[Quoting headers from one of Tony's emails]
Please read section 4 of RFC 2045, then try to find the
"MIME-Version:" header in Tony's messages, then you may understand
that Tony's mailer isn't sending MIME messages. There is some
language in that section that permits software to interpret non-MIME
messages "according to local conventions", but if it tries to treat
non-MIME messages according to the MIME standards and loses, then I'm
free to consider it broken, and I do! Content-Type: text
Moreover, they have no attachments, no hooks for attachments, and
nothing other than correct ASCII headers and plain ASCII text (as,
indeed, the headers indicate).
This header is invalid according to RFC 2045, because it should
contain a type and subtype (in this case, it should be text/plain).