On Sun, Apr 08, 2001 at 12:24:57PM -0400, Charlie Summers wrote:
> At 11:25 AM -0400 4/8/01, Tim Pierce is rumored to have typed:
> > I'm
> > told that Netscape Mail also handles them nicely, with an option
> > to view all digest attachments inline or as separate messages.
> Would I be correct in this case that there are technically no attachments,
> but rather messages? (MIME parts? Subparts? I dunno...the termonology gives
> me a headache. Maybe it's just the cold...)
Tomato, tomahto. A message is an attachment is a body part. (Blame
Microsoft for the `attachment' terminology, I think.)
> > Therein lie the risks of hewing blindly to standards. Just about
> > every specification is going to have holes in it, and some issues are
> > going to slip through the cracks.
> With respect, shouldn't the holes be patched and the projected standard
> changed to handle them, instead of allowing the confusion to continue?
Sure. But what are you going to do until then? You still need to get
the job done.