Re: multipart/alternative in QP encoding - mutt bug or user error?
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:54:59PM +0200, Thomas Roessler 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.
That's easy for you to say... the email came from a financial
institution and I've never even heard of the sending MUA.
> multipart/* MUST NOT be
> encoded.
Presumably then, mutt should ignore the transfer-encoding of a multipart/*
email.
I report this because the email in question was sent to a friend who is
not a technical expert on RFC2822 and mutt told her that the message was
blank, which caused her a lot of confusion. Yes, the sending software
is at fault, but this fact doesn't help the poor recipient who can't see
the message.
imc