Adam Bailey wrote:
>
> On 11/19/97 2:11 AM CST, Vince Sabio <vince@humournet.com> wrote...
>
> >** Sometime around 23:10 -0500 11/18/97, Adam Bailey said:
> >
> >>The problem is, attachments are not really a standard. The way they're
> >>handled can vary from mailer to mailer, and from gateway to gateway.
> >
> >Maybe the way they're *handled* can vary, but the attachments, themselves,
> >are *very* standard, for the most part.
>
> That's what I meant. What one mailer or gateway considers body text,
> another considers an attachment.
Um, no. How many years has MIME been an Internet standard? If a gateway or
mailer claims to gateway to or from the Internet into a non-Internet-standard
mail domain (like cc:mail or QuickMail or PROFS or whatever), and does not
syntactically recognize a MIME attachment (regardless of whether it has the
capability to decode it or process it), it's fatally broken and need not be
supported, and whomever is using it should be flamed. (Excuse me,
"admonished".) An attachment is an attachment.
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@postmodern.com
References:
|
|
