Hi Thomas!
On Monday, September 25, 2006 at 11:59:01 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> some of the "overly verbose" headers were added to counter
> interoperability problems
Anyone has an example, or pointer to discussion of such problems?
Note I vaguely seem to recall a contrary example: A "reject
attachments" option of a mailing list robot was wrongly triggered by
Mutt's "Content-Disposition: inline" in plain text monopart mails.
> while minimal headers are nice on a geekish level, I'd rather keep the
> current code -- we know it to work and interoperate well
Nice, especially given Mutt's target audience. But I agree that good
interop wins.
> Sorry,
No problem, much thanks for the review.
Bye! Alain.
--
Bandwidth?
See the archives for more discussion on why this should,
like hydrogen for dirigibles, be relegated to the past.
PCC DTG on MU. © August 2004.