<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: multipart/alternative in QP encoding - mutt bug or user error?



* On 2004.05.25, in <20040525165459.GC3124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
*       "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2004-05-19 15:03:50 +0100, Ian Collier wrote:
> 
> > Now it's presumably an error to say that a multipart mail is in
> > QP format when in fact only the individual parts are, but I think
> > that mutt should either fail gracefully or work around the
> > obvious error.  What say the developers?
> 
> Fix the sending software, fix it now.  multipart/* MUST NOT be
> encoded.

As a workaround, since the mail seems not to be encoded (but says it
is), you could try fixing it with procmail/formail. Something like:

:0 f
* ^Content-Type: multipart
* ^Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
| formail -I Content-Transfer-Encoding:

-- 
 -D.    dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx                                  NSIT::ENSS
        No money,  no book.  No book,  no study.  No study, no pass.
        No pass, no graduate. No graduate, no job. No job, no money.
             T h e   U n i v e r s i t y   o f   C h i c a g o