On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 07:08:47AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Ken Irving wrote: > > >On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 07:33:58PM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote: > >> > >>On Apr 14, 2006, at 6:22 PM, Ken Irving wrote: > [...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? > > Sorry for the confusion. In retrospect, I probably should have > referred to ''rfc822 messages with unencapsulated bodies''. > > I was referring to rfc822's specification for encapsulating the > message header data, but not its body. > Rfc2046 provides additional specification for encapsulating the > message body. From a class perspective rfc2046 messages can be > viewed as a subclass/specialization of rfc822 messages. > > For example--this message. It conforms to rfc822, but not rfc2046, > because the body is not encapsulated. > > N.B. If I had added _any_ attachment, my MUA would've sent a rfc2046 > message instead. > > P.S. by now I sure hope that Barbara Oncay is no longer subscribed :-)
but haven't you been cc'ing her all along? I mean she started this thing... A > > > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
