On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 07:33:58PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Ken Irving wrote: > > >On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 04:04:53PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote: > >> > >>[...snip...] > >>Taking a brief look at the specs, but not enough to grok them: > >>I suspect that the problem is that the notice is tacked on _after_ > >>the attachments---essentially turning the notice into an "epilog'' > >><i> without a content-type</i> rather than either: > >>(a) placing it within the first text part; or > >>(b) attaching it as a well-formed part. > >> > >>Since it's an ill-formed part, it's properly ignored. > > > >Good analysis! rfc2046 seems to supersede 1341, but says the > >same thing wrt epilog(ue) parts, including: > > > > The boundary delimiter line following the last body part ... > > indicates that no further body parts will follow. ... > > > >Presumably clients that do show the unsub sig are not RFC compliant, > >and the ones that are "failing to show it" are compliant. > > > >>[...snip...] > > ...for rfc2046 messages. My understanding is that all MUAs should > show the trailer when handling unencapsulated rfc822 messages.
IANAL, nor particularly versed in RFCs, but it looks to me like RFC 2046 and neighbors (in several parts) lay out the recommendations for MIME messages. The debian "unsubscribe sig" does appear on non-MIME messages (non-rfc2046?) on my MUA (mutt), but are correctly not shown in MIME encoded ones since they fall into the epilogue section. I can't find anything relevant on "unencapsulated rfc822"; can you provide any references? Ken -- Ken Irving -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
