Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu)
Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:37:40 -0400
> > to me it seems silly to expect a standards body to solve a problem which
> > is caused by a deliberately standards-violating mail reader.
> > in other words, this seems like the wrong place to try to solve the
> > problem.
>
> I haven't examined the various standards carefully, but which standard
> specifies MUA behavior for forwarding email? I'm unware of one.
the problem, as I understand it, is that the contents are not properly
labelled. it's not just forwarding, it's everything generated by outlick.
> > as for a technical solution, maybe if receivers automatically
> > bounced mail that didn't have proper content-type labels that would
> > solve the problem.
>
> While that would be nice in theory, I'm afraid I'm looking for a more
> pragmatic solution.
that's actually the most pragmatic thing I can think of.
it is within our control and would actually have a useful effect.
> For example, mutt 1.2.5i doesn't send the Content-Type by default when
> forwarding a message. Should we bounce all messages from it, too?
any message that contains non-text content that lacks a content-type
is broken. bouncing broken messages seems like reasonable behavior.
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Oct 23 2001 - 23:37:41 IST