Forest added the comment: I thought at first that this might be deliberate behavior in order to comply with RFC 2046 section 5.1.2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2046#section-5.1.2
After carefully re-reading that section, I see that it is just making sure an outer message's boundary will still be recognized if an inner multipart message is missing its boundary markers (for example if the inner message was truncated). It does not describe any circumstances under which the inner message's boundary markers should be ignored when they are present. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue25728> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
