On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 07:50:50AM +0800, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 05:59:23PM -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > 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. > > Thanks for replying Derek! I was hoping some old-timers would chime in for > this kind of change.
I try... I don't have as much time to follow up on this stuff as I once did... :) > The issue was that an MTA along the way was "helpfully" removing the > unneeded extra line from his email, and in doing so, invalidating his DKIM > signature. That's annoying. Well, this is the trouble with having so many standards, and adding to them over the years. Few can keep up with them, even if one would want to... :-/ > Given that we're well past the time where non-MIME mail readers are in use, > and that none of the "big" mail generators are adding the extra line > anymore, he asked if Mutt would consider removing it too. Given the problem, it doesn't seem unreasonable to be accomodating. OTOH it's not Mutt that's broken, technically... it's the MTA. But good luck getting that changed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ On the other, other hand, almost no one uses multi-part messages properly for what they were intended for, anyway. Roughly 90% of the multi-part messages I receive have an ASCII alternative body, but it's empty. I always want to slap the sender over the head with a rolled-up newspaper, and ask, "Why did you bother with this?!?! You're just making things worse!" > This is great, especially the example in 2049 Appendix A. Yeah, it's clear as mud now! -- 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.
