On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 02:38:34PM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > I've added comments around the change, to hopefully make it clear why > the change was made to long standing behavior in mutt.
I don't quite find the intent clear from the comments... is the issue ONLY that there's an extra line between the message headers and the first multipart boundary? If so, I think the change is fine, but totally unnecessary. In a multi-part message, the bits that immediately follow the message headers are the "preamble" section of the message. This part exists so that if your (very ancient) mail reader doesn't know how to handle multi-part messages, the sender can put a message there to inform you that you are an antiquated fart (or at least your mail reader is). Any mail reader which understands multipart messages should ignore all text (even just an extra blank line) between the messge headers and the first multi-part boundary. See e.g. RFC 2049, Appendix A, and also RFC 2096 section 5.1.1. That would not be a bug per se (i.e. that behavior is allowed and has no effect on modern MUAs), except perhaps that the message contains an extra superfluous CRLF pair. Note that the message parts should NOT end with an extra EoL which was not part of the message part. If the intent is other, then ignore my comments. =8^) -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
