>>>>> "NS" == Nick Simicich <njs@scifi.squawk.com> writes:
NS> My opinion is that you should either go with a full mime structure -
NS> that is, the top level mime type is a multipart/digest, as per RFC1521,
NS> and the inner parts are then defaulted to message/rfc822, such that
NS> they can have their own content-type, boundary, and mime structure, or
NS> you should flatten umercifully, the top level content type should be
NS> text/plain, and the digest headers should be restricted to those
NS> specified in RFC1153.
The user already gets to choose which format they want. I hadn't thought
about flattening for the 1153 digests but I don't think that goes along
with what most people expect to get. If the main list is flattening, sure,
but I think it would be counterintuitive to get things on the main list
that you don't get in the digest or even worse to get things in one digest
type that you don't get in another.
BTW, that description of a MIME digest is illegal; if you want headers and
a contents listing, you must have a multipart/mixed with some text/plain
parts and a multipart/digest part because multipart/digest does not allow
parts that aren't message/rfc822. We already generate legal MIME digests.
(There was a good discussion of this on list-managers a while back; the way
we generate MIME digests is the simplest permitted by the standard. It's
also what the listserv people generate.)
- J<
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
